Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 14012

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 14012"

Hilary Watson
5 years ago
Views:

1 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION THE NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, Case Nos. 2:06-cv-896; 2:12-cv-562 Judge Algenon Marbley Magistrate Judge Terrence P. Kemp JON HUSTED, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Ohio, et al., Defendants. Declaration of Subodh Chandra in support of motion for attorneys fees and costs related to certain 2012 work I, Subodh Chandra, respectfully declare as follows: 1. I am counsel of record for Plaintiffs Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, the Columbus Coalition for the Homeless, SEIU Local 1199, and the individual Plaintiffs. 2. I am the managing partner of The Chandra Law Firm, LLC, 1265 W. 6 th Street, Suite 400, in Cleveland, Ohio. This declaration is submitted on behalf of Plaintiffs and our law firm. 3. Among our firm s principal practice areas is complex civil-rights litigation, including votingrights and First-Amendment litigation. I am admitted and practice in both the Southern and Northern Districts of Ohio. I am also admitted and have practiced in federal courts across the United States. My biography page from which includes some information on various civil-rights cases that I have litigated, is attached as Exhibit A. 4. I graduated from the Yale Law School in 1994, where I was the executive editor of the Yale Law & Policy Review. Page 1 of 9

2 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: I then served a stint as special-presidential counsel to the President-Elect of the American Bar Association. 6. After that, I worked in private practice in New Mexico, among other things assisting a nationally prominent civil-rights firm on plaintiffs civil-rights matters. I then moved to Los Angeles, where I was a litigator with the large firm Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro. There, among other things, I helped defend the mayors, city council members, and police commissioners among other officials of the Cities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills in high-profile, complex civil-rights 1983 cases. I also worked on entertainment-litigation matters. 7. I moved to Cleveland to serve as a large-firm civil litigator, with Thompson Hine & Flory, where I handled a high-profile plaintiffs civil-rights case on a pro bono basis and also defended civil-rights matters, as well as business-litigation matters. I then served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting complex economic-crime schemes, and returned to a heavy civil-rights-related practice as Director of Law for the City of Cleveland. There, I supervised the litigation, trials, and settlements of countless matters, including countless Section 1983/civil-rights/First-Amendment lawsuits. I personally conducted many of the City s most complex settlement negotiations. I also played an active and leading role in the City of Cleveland s command center in connection with the 2004 presidential election. 8. I returned to private practice, founding my own law firm in I also served that year as Distinguished Practitioner in Residence and full Adjunct Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, teaching legal ethics and appellate practice. I am currently the Ohio chapter president of the International Network of Boutique Law Firms, an international network of law firms with highly credentialed attorneys comparable to larger international law firms. Page 2 of 9

3 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: Ashlie Case Sletvold joined our firm in Ms. Sletvold graduated in 2005 from the Yale Law School, where she was Articles Editor of the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism and an editor of the Yale Journal on Regulation. She is admitted to practice law in Ohio, Florida, and Colorado. Before joining The Chandra Law Firm, Ms. Sletvold served as a trial litigator at Jones Day, one of the world s largest law firms. There, she worked on complex trials and appeals related to high-profile product and mass-tort-liability disputes, including representing R.J. Reynolds. She also represented indigent clients in pro bono criminal cases at the trial and appeals-court levels, providing aggressive representation in seeking to overturn convictions. Since joining The Chandra Law Firm, Ms. Sletvold has been active in the firm s First Amendment, civil-rights, and voting-rights practices. 10. Sandhya Gupta is of counsel with The Chandra Law Firm, LLC, joining our civilrights/voting-rights practice in Ms. Gupta graduated in 2004 from Columbia Law School, where she was an Articles Editor on the Columbia Law Review. In , she clerked for the Hon. James S. Gwin, U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Ohio. Her civil-rights experience includes working for the New York City-based publicinterest law firm Neufeld, Scheck & Brustin (formerly Cochran Neufeld & Scheck). She previously practiced with Arnold & Porter LLP s New York office, where her time was billed at over $300/hour. 11. Suzanne Zaranko is a senior paralegal and office manager at Chandra Law. Before joining the firm in 2011, Zaranko was a paralegal for fifteen years at various firms. 12. The lawyers working for The Chandra Law Firm, LLC bill, depending upon experience and demand, at rates ranging from $300 to $465 per hour. As stated, I bill fee-paying clients in similar matters at $435 per hour. Ashlie Case Sletvold bills at $350 per hour. Sandhya Gupta bills at $300 per hour. Our senior paralegal, Suzanne Zaranko, bills at $120 per hour. Our Page 3 of 9

4 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: rates have been gradually increasing due to increasing demand. We are highly selective and respectfully decline over 95% of matters for which our services are sought. 13. Our firm and I have hourly clients who have paid the rates that we are seeking from this Court in this fee-shifting matter, and have settled cases based on these calculations as well. 14. Our law firm s contemporaneously recorded billing records, which I have reviewed, provide the information regarding fees, costs, and expenses that are in the invoice attached as Exhibit B. All of the identified tasks and costs were factually related to, and reasonably calculated to result in, maintain, enforce, and advance, the success that my clients have enjoyed in this matter. As the invoice reflects, wherever feasible, work was delegated to the lowest-billing personnel in our law firm. The billing records and motion for fees that this Declaration accompanies accurately state the work that we performed in this matter, and this Declaration incorporates those facts by reference. 15. I reviewed all of the time entries in this case to ensure that the time included was directly related to this litigation and to label on the invoice the time entries into five categories of how time was spent. We then reviewed the invoice and calculated the total fees associated with each category: Nature of work Preparing to intervene in Intervenor-Defendants Niehaus and Blessing s collateral attack upon the Consent Decree in the Ohio Supreme Court. (The vast majority of time for this work was invested by our co-counsel law firms and not ours; we concentrated on the federal proceeding and so waive any fee claim for preparing to intervene). Seeking in this Court to enjoin Intervenor-Defendants Ohio Supreme Court challenge to the Consent Decree. Opposing Defendants motion to vacate the Consent Decree and defending success on that issue on appeal. Litigating the motion to modify the Consent Decree. Although that motion was stayed indefinitely as moot by the grant of the preliminary injunction in the jointly argued, related case SEIU Local 1, Case No. 12-CV-562, it was nevertheless an integral part of the success and relief our clients enjoyed in this matter. The evidence gathered was also a part of Plaintiffs appellate defense of the District Fees $0.00 $18, $45, $12, Page 4 of 9

5 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: Court s denial of Defendants effort to vacate the Consent Decree. Preparing this motion for attorneys fees (reserving the right to see additional fees $15, for litigating fees over anticipated opposition). Total $92, I have edited or redacted a limited number of specific time entries regarding communications with clients and co-counsel to maintain the attorney-client privilege and to avoid revealing attorney work product information, such as strategies, avenues of research, and methods of investigation. We will submit additional attorney time incurred after this date in conjunction with Plaintiffs reply papers. 17. Page 41 of the invoice (Exhibit B) lists the lodestar hours, rates, and total attorneys fees by Biller personnel at our firm for the relevant work performed regarding the work relevant to the motion to date. That information is summarized below (further broken down by calculations we made by category): Lawschool grad Mot. Enjoin hours Mot. Vacate hours Mot. Modify hours Mot. Fees Hours Hours by biller Hourly rate Lodestar Subodh $435 $53,766 Chandra Ashlie $350 $35,525 Case Sletvold Sandhya $300 $3,270 Gupta Suzanne $120 $180 Zaranko (Sr. Paralegal) Totals $92, In the exercise of billing discretion and to avoid even the perception of duplication of effort, our firm did not record, and has not petitioned this Court for fees and expenses for work that we performed and fees for which our clients would otherwise be entitled in relation to the work that is a part of this fee petition. Plaintiffs have reviewed the time records and Page 5 of 9

6 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: deleted time or reduced time inefficiently spent, duplicative, or otherwise non-productive, or if the magnitude or importance of the task performed did not warrant the amount of time actually billed. We estimate the number of hours written off to be approximately 60. In addition, we have not charged for time spent on unsuccessful claims. 19. My current (2013) customary hourly billing rate with fee-paying clients in civil-rights and other matters is $435/hr. In 2012 it was $425/hr. In related civil-rights/election-law-related litigation, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio previously approved rates for me of $410/hr for work performed in 2011 and $400/hr for work performed in 2010 (see Hunter v. Hamilton County Bd. of Elections, Case No. 1:10-cv , 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D. Ohio, Sept. 30, 2013)); $395 per hour, for work performed in and then $400/hr for work performed thereafter through 2010 (see Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, Case No cv-00896, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS , at *21 22 (S.D. Ohio, Nov. 30, 2010) (Doc. #234), aff d Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 695 F.3d 563 (6th Cir. Aug. 30, 2012)). The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Lockhart v. Village of Woodmere (Case No. 1:05-cv ) approved a rate of $400/hr for work performed back in , and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Parker v. Mayfield Boneyard, LLC, et al. (Case No CV ) approved $400/hr rate for work performed in As the above and other cases (some of which were discussed in my earlier declarations in this case), our firm has considerable experience in litigating election cases under expedited schedules. Page 6 of 9

7 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: I have written, consulted, and served as an expert witness on attorneys fees and legal-ethics issues. I have fully litigated fee-shifting issues. Most recently, I am the author of Charging Attorneys Fees: Where Should the Line Be Drawn? A Plaintiff Lawyer s Perspective, THE FEDERAL LAWYER (Jun. 2013). As a result of these activities, our firm has as recently as October 2013 surveyed many other civil-rights and other fee-shifting practitioners of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation. The rates that I charge are consistent with the customary rates of those whom we have consulted: Eric Zagrans, a 1977 admittee, in 2012 charged a $595 standard hourly rate. W. Craig Bashein, a 1986 admittee, in 2013 had a $500 hourly rate, with $400 $500 hourly received over the last five years from fee-paying clients. Alphonse Gerhardstein, a 1996 admittee practicing in Cincinnati, reported in 2008 an hourly rate of $400. David Leopold, a 1985 admittee whose practice includes civil-rights litigation reported for 2012 a $350 $450 hourly rate for himself, and $350 hourly for his 2008-admittee associate. David G. Phillips, a 1990 admittee and civil-rights lawyer, charges $440 hourly. David Mills, a 2002 admittee, has an hourly rate of $330. Aparesh Paul, a 2002 admittee, charges $300 hourly for himself and his firm charges $425 hourly for named-partner Joel Levin. Edward Forman, a 2003 admittee practicing in Columbus, has an hourly rate of $300. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio approved billable rates several years back in fee-shifting litigation for experienced attorneys as high as $500 per hour. See Southern Christian Leadership Conference et al. v. McDonald, No. 1:07-cv-3751, order at 7 Page 7 of 9

8 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: (N.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 2007) (O Malley, J., approving $500 hourly rate for Avery Friedman in fee-shifting case). 21. I have considered Ohio Rule of Professional Conduct 1.5 and believe that the rates that we charge our clients and seek in this matter are consistent with the factors set forth there, in particular the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; the amount involved and the results obtained; the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances including expedited litigation in this case; the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client, which has extended over a number of years; the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer performing the services, which as this Court has previously noted are strong in these types of civil-and-voting-rights-related matters. 22. The total attorneys fees sought by our firm through November 10, 2013 for the particular work involved in this fee petition (reserving the right to seek additional fees for the need to litigate fees) are $92, The total of costs and expenses related to that same work is $ (Like the fees, as reflected toward the end of the attached invoice, the expenses have been categorized by the work performed.) 24. Thus, the total in attorneys fees and costs sought to be recovered for the work of The Chandra Law Firm, LLC is $93, Page 8 of 9

9 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: I declare the above to be true under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America. Best regards, Subodh Chandra Executed on November 15, 2013 Page 9 of 9

10 Case: 2:06-cv ALM-TPK Doc #: Filed: 12/12/13 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 12, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the counsel of record in this case. /s/ Stephen P. Berzon STEPHEN P. BERZON, pro hac vice STACEY M. LEYTON, pro hac vice BARBARA J. CHISHOLM, pro hac vice DANIELLE LEONARD, pro hac vice Altshuler Berzon LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) sberzon@altshulerberzon.com Attorney for Plaintiffs SEIU District 1199

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document 274 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 8

Case 4:10-cv YGR Document 274 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 8 Case 4:10-cv-01811-YGR Document 274 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Rosemary M. Rivas (SBN 209147) rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP One California