United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
H.D.V. - GREEKTOWN, L.L.C., et al., Plaintiffs,
City of Detroit, Defendant.
U.S. District Judge Arthur J.
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
; OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION
; GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS'
SECOND MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 
J. Tarnow Senior United States District Judge
H.D.V. - Greektown, 415 East Congress, and K&P Inc. filed
a Second Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees and
Costs  on September 20, 2016. Defendant City of Detroit
filed a Response  on October 4, 2016. Plaintiffs filed a
Reply  on October 18, 2016.
September 28, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”)  recommending
that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs'
Motion. The R&R further recommends that the Court award
Plaintiffs' counsel a total of $905, 718.56, subject to
the orders of the Bankruptcy Court. [Dkt. #180].
reasons stated below, the R&R  is ADOPTED in
part; Plaintiffs' Objection  is
OVERRULED; and Plaintiffs' Second Motion
for Attorney's Fees  is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
and Procedural Background
closely-held Michigan limited liability companies in the
adult entertainment business, alleged that Defendant violated
their First Amendment rights by hindering the operation of
their businesses with regulations.
August 23, 2011, Plaintiffs obtained a $2.95 million
settlement in this § 1983 action. The parties stipulated
that the Court would decide the issue of attorney fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and that Plaintiffs were
prevailing parties for purposes of determining such fees and
October 4, 2011, Plaintiffs filed their first Motion for
Attorney Fees and Costs , in which they sought over $1.5
million. On May 23, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued an
R&R  recommending that the Court grant in part and
deny in part Plaintiffs' Motion. Specifically, the
R&R recommended that the Court reduce Plaintiffs'
request for attorney fees by 60%. The R&R  further
recommended that the Court decline to grant a fee
enhancement, and impose a 3% cap on the fees incurred
litigating the attorney fee issue (“fees for
fees”). On March 31, 2015, the Court issued an Order
 adopting the R&R and overruling Plaintiffs'
filed a Notice of Appeal  on April 20, 2015. On appeal,
the Sixth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded to the district court. H.D.V. - Greektown, LLC
v. City of Detroit, 660 F. App'x 375, 378 (6th Cir.
2016). The Sixth Court held, inter alia, that the
district court abused its discretion when it failed to
adequately explain why a 60% reduction was appropriate.
Id. at 385. The Court further held that the award
must be recalculated in light of the Sixth Circuit's
decision in The Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v.
Husted, 831 F.3d 686, 720 (6th Cir. 2016). Id. at
their Second Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees and
Costs , Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to
additional attorney fees and costs, such as costs related to
appellate litigation. Plaintiffs further argue that they are
entitled to a substantial fee enhancement because of the City
of Detroit's bankruptcy status.
Response , Defendant does not contest Plaintiffs'
right to recover the additional attorney fees and costs
associated with the appeal. Moreover, Defendant concedes that
Plaintiffs' hourly rates are reasonable. Id. at
11. Although Defendant maintains that the total amount
Plaintiffs seek is excessive, Defendant nevertheless waives
any objections contesting the total time incurred by counsel
in preparing the instant Motion. However, Defendant argues
that Plaintiffs are neither entitled to bill in quarter-hour
increments for all tasks, nor entitled to an enhancement of
R&R  recommends that the Court grant in part and
deny in part Plaintiffs' Motion . In particular, the
R&R: accepts Plaintiffs' claimed hourly rates in
computing the lodestar as reasonable (Section III-A); accepts
Plaintiffs' “fees for fees” award request as
reasonable (Section III-B); recommends an 80% reduction to
certain fees and a 10% reduction to remaining fees (Section
III-C); recommends awarding costs associated with the appeal,
but reducing quarter-hour billing to one-tenth hour billing
(Section III-D); and recommends denying Plaintiffs'
request for a fee enhancement (Section III-D).
October 12, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an Objection  to the
R&R. Plaintiffs solely object to Section III-E, which
recommends that the Court decline to impose a fee