A federal judge from Western District of Pennsylvania has sided, in part, with Slippery Rock University, which opposed a motion for attorney fees and costs brought by student athletes who had reached a settlement with the college regarding a Title IX lawsuit.
In so ruling, the court found that “certain of the students’ requests for fees (were) untimely,… and that the requested number of hours submitted for compensation (was), in certain instances, redundant and excessive.”
The settlement agreement between the parties called for “ongoing monitoring by the students until the university achieved compliance.” Shortly after the settlement, the students moved for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of such monitoring and the negotiation of amendments to the settlement agreement. The university opposed the motion, arguing that the request for some fees was untimely, that some of the requested hourly rates were “unreasonable” and that the number of hours worked on particular tasks was “excessive and redundant.”
Addressing the issue of timeliness, the court found some of the plaintiffs’ requests untimely. However, it reached “a different conclusion with respect to the timeliness of fees requested for work done in connection with the 2009 Motion to Enforce, the 2009 Mediation and the 2009 Settlement Agreement.” Central to its finding was that the plaintiffs gave that they “intended to file a petition for attorney’s fees. The court did not impose a deadline for the filing of the petition nor did the university ask for one. Because the university was on notice of the imminent filing of the motion, I find that the requests in this regard — even though filed two months after the entry of the consent order — were timely filed.”
Next, the court examined the reasonableness of the hourly fees.
“I find that the students have sustained their prima facie burden of establishing that the rates requested above are reasonable, given the experience, skill and reputation of the attorneys involved, the complex matter of this litigation, and the prevailing market rates,” wrote the court. “The university has not submitted any affidavits stating that the fees requested by the students’ attorneys are unfair or unreasonable or are otherwise not in accord with the prevailing market rates. Accordingly, given the absence of any conflicting evidence as well as the fact that the parties have not requested a hearing on the issue of an hourly rate, I find that the students have satisfied their burden of establishing the reasonableness of the requested hourly fees.”
Similarly, it found the complexity of the case necessitated the overall hours spent on the case.
“We are four years into a case that was amicably settled based upon the proposition that the university would achieve Title IX compliance,” wrote the court. “Compliance has not yet occurred. Presumably, the university would argue that compliance is elusive given the complicated and complex nature of Title IX and the evolving nature of the university’s student population. If the university were to advance such an argument, then dividing the complexity of the case among several attorneys, thereby allowing each to focus on a narrow area, would seem perfectly reasonable. Pooling their knowledge for the mediation would have to occur, either by attending the mediation or by conferring beforehand. The university has objected to both methods. If the university were to dispute the characterization of this case as complex, one would question why compliance remains elusive after so many years. In any event, I do not find the billing in this regard to be unreasonable.”
Finally, the court reviewed the university’s request for a reduction of the lodestar based upon two factors: limited success and the fact that the award comes from public funds.
“I reject the request on both counts. Obviously, an amendment to a settlement agreement is, by its very nature, a compromise. Nevertheless, the students did obtain success and should not be punished in terms of a fee reduction because they were willing to compromise.
“I am also cognizant of the fact that the University is a public entity and, as such, the State System of Higher Education will bear the cost of any award of fees in this action. This will, in turn, have a negative effect on the taxpayers of Pennsylvania. Yet the taxpayers should look to the University’s administrators, rather than to this court or to the students’ attorneys, for an answer as to why fees are being paid. It is the university and its administrators who have failed — for more than 30 years — to achieve compliance with Title IX. The original settlement agreement was reached here in 2007. The students filed a Motion to Enforce in 2009 because, despite its explicit acknowledgement that Title IX compliance had not been achieved, and despite agreeing to a specific plan for achieving compliance going forward, the university failed to achieve such compliance. Thus, while this court is saddened by the thought of burdening the taxpayers with the fees in this case, the university bears the responsibility for the same.”
Elizabeth Laura Choike, et al., on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals V. Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania of the State System of Higher Education; W.D.Pa.; Civil Action No. 6-622, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118131; 11/5/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Abbe F. Fletman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Flaster Greenberg, P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Lizanne V. Hackett, LEAD ATTORNEY, Flaster/Greenberg, Cherry Hill, NJ; Susan J. Frietsche, LEAD ATTORNEY, Women’s Law Project, Western Pennsylvania Office, Pittsburgh, PA; Terry L. Fromson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Women’s Law Project, Philadelphia, PA. (for defendants) Mariah L Passarelli, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA; Scott A. Bradley, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the Attorney General, Pittsburgh, PA.
