BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S AMENDED MOTION FOR ENTITLEMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES

Plaintiff, [plfName], on this [D] day of [MMMM] [YYYY], respectfully asks this Court to deny “Defendant's Amended Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Attorneys' Fees”.

Key Points:

Points	meritorious suit;

Grounds	good faith;

Table of Contents:

Context	2nd Page
Motion	3rd Page
Certificates	8th Page
Exhibits	9th Page
Affidavits	12th Page

Background:	Plaintiff presented facts that displayed Defendant’s guilt
Problem:	Defendant wants to punish Plaintiff for presenting facts
Request:	Court rejects Defendant’s request

Local Rule 7.01(b) | USFLMD | Motion… Entitlement | (highlights added)

“Within fourteen days after entry of judgment, the party claiming fees and expenses must request a determination of entitlement in a motion”

42 USC §1988(b) | Attorney’s Fees

“In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985… the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party… a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs,”

Precedent

8:22-cv-01750-CPT	- USFLMD (3/26/24)

6:21-cv-00915-LHP	- USFLMD (10/12/23)

3:21-cv-00514-MMH-LLL	- USFLMD (9/21/23)

6:21-cv-00258-LHP	- USFLMD (8/7/23)

6:22-cv-01685-PGB-EJK	- USFLMD (5/30/23)

8:21-cv-01516-WFJ-AEP	- USFLMD (2/27/23)

3:17-cv-01409-MMH-PDB	- USFLMD (8/16/19)

USFLMD has recently granted denied similar fee requests

Abbreviations:

{#NN}	-	Docket Entry NN [of this case]
[M##]	-	Page ## of ‘That Motion’
[O##]	-	Page ## of ‘That Order’
DOAH	-	Division of Administrative Hearings (Florida)
FCHR	-	Florida Commission on Human Relations
FCHR SA	-	FCHR Staff Attorney
FS	-	Florida Statutes
USFLMD	-	US District Court, Florida, Middle District

MOTION

Substantive Facts: Defendant’s Unlawful Conduct

[fact001]

[fact002]

[fact003]

Analysis

[any001]

[any002]

[any003]

Standard for Review

Rule 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. gives this Court the power to deny inoperable motions:

“These rules… should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding”

Rule 1 Fed. R. Civ. P.

Moreover, Local Rule 7.01(b) provides the framework for rendering decisions on motions for entitlement of fees (ie, That Motion):

“...the party claiming fees and expenses must request a determination of entitlement in a motion that: (1) specifies the judgment and the statute, rule, or other ground entitling the movant to the award”

Local Rule 7.01(b) USFLMD

The US Supreme Court has long held that it is wrong to award attorney fees to civil rights violators (highlights added):

“That § 706(k) allows fee awards only to prevailing private plaintiffs should assure that this statutory provision will not, in itself, operate as an incentive to the bringing of claims that have little chance of success. [Footnote 19] To take the further step of assessing attorney's fees against plaintiffs simply because they do not finally prevail would substantially add to the risks inhering in most litigation and would undercut the efforts of Congress to promote the vigorous enforcement of the provisions of Title VII. Hence, a plaintiff should not be assessed his opponent's attorney's fees…”

Christianburg v. EEOC, 434 US 412 (1978)

USFLMD has synthesized the US Supreme Court’s holding (along with 11th Circuit decisions) to formulate a standard of review:

“"The Eleventh Circuit has identified four factors for district courts to consider when assessing a defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees under §1988:

(1) whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case;

(2) whether the defendant offered to settle;

(3) whether the trial court dismissed the case prior to trial; and

(4) whether there was enough support for the plaintiff’s claim to warrant the court’s close attention.

Beach Blitz Co. v. City of Miami Beach, 13 F.4th 1289, 1301−02 (11th Cir. 2021) (quoting Sullivan v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cnty., 773 F.2d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 1985)). Even if the first three factors favor the prevailing defendant, a court will not award attorneys’ fees if the “particularly important” fourth factor is in the plaintiff’s favor. Id. at 1302; Cordoba v. Dillard’s Inc., 419 F.3d 1169, 1181−82 (11th Cir. 2005)."

Poulin v. Bush, 8:21-cv-1516 (USFLMD 2/27/23)

Put briefly, this Court can use the following four-factor analysis when reviewing That Motion:

Factor One: a prima facie showing;

Factor Two: Defendant’s offers to settle;

Factor Three: case dismissal; and

Factor Four: support for close attention.

Importantly – as the Poulin case explained – the fourth factor trumps all preceding factors.

Application

In the instant case, the [nthFactor] is in Plaintiff’s favor.

First – and according to the McDonnell-Douglas Framework – Plaintiff has presented a prima facie case of employment discrimination.

His/Her discrimination suit was proffered on protected characteristics (ie, [chgBss]);

He/She proved that he/she was qualified for the position (and/or eligible for rehire);

He/She proved that he/she was subjected to adverse employment acts (eg, termination); and

He/She proved that other employees – who were outside of his/her demographic group – were not subjected to those adverse acts.

Please accord Green v. McDonnell-Douglas, 318 F. Supp. 846 (1970); Green v. McDonnell-Douglas, 463 F.2D 337 (8th Cir. 1972); and McDonnell-Douglas v. Green, 411 US 792 (1973).

Secondly, [app001]

Thirdly, [app002]

Fourthly – and most importantly – Plaintiff has supported this lawsuit with evidence. [app003]

As the Poulin case held, this fourth prong renders That Motion worthy of rejection (highlights added):

“Here, the Court need not consider the first three factors identified by the Eleventh Circuit, as the fourth factor is dispositive… Though ultimately unsuccessful, Plaintiff’s §1983 claim warranted the close attention of the Court. To be sure, this was not a claim of obvious frivolity at the time of this action’s initiation…. Rather, Plaintiff supported his claim with multiple forms of evidence, thereby requiring ample briefing by the parties… This is reflected in the Court’s summary judgment order, in which the Court thoroughly assessed the parties’ arguments and the adequacy of Plaintiff’s evidence.... A claim warranting such close review cannot be said to be frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation… Given Plaintiff’s §1983 claim was supported to the extent it required the Court’s close attention, [Defendant’s] Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is due to be denied."

Poulin v. Bush, 8:21-cv-1516 (USFLMD 2/27/23)

Thus – equipped with Poulin, McDonnell-Douglas, and several other authorities – this Court is well-positioned to reject That Motion. And Plaintiff hereby asks that it does.

Nature of Relief Sought

Plaintiff seeks rejection of That Motion, because:

[rzn001];

[rzn002]; and

[rzn003];

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to reject Defendant’s Amended Motion for Determination for Entitlement of Attorney’s Fees (ie, ‘That Motion’). Because [rzn];.

Dated this [DD]th day of [MMMM] [YYYY].

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ [plfName]

[plfName], Plaintiff

[plfAddy]

P: [plfPhn]

E: [plfEml]

W: TextBookDiscrimination.com

Get Booked Up on Justice!

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the size and style of type used in this document is Times New Roman 14-point Font (caption) and Century Schoolbook 13-point Font (contents); thus complying with the font requirements of Local Rule 1.08.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this [D] day of [MMM] [YYYY], I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Courts by using its online filing page. I also emailed it to the attached service list.

/s/ [plfName]

Endnotes:

Electronic Copy: (text-searchable)

How-To Guide: How to Respond to a Motion for Determination of Entitlement to Attorney Fees

SERVICE LIST

[defAtt], Esquire ([barNum]) E: [defEml] P: [defPhn] (defendant’s trial lawyers)

EXHIBIT A

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

[courtDistrict], [courtDivision]

[plfName]	)	Case No (LT)
Plaintiff	)	[caseNo]
)
v.	)
)
[defName]	)
Defendant	)

PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ‘PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES’

The affiant, [plfName], swears or affirms as follows:

Background

I am over the age of eighteen (18).

I am a plaintiff in the above-captioned case.

This affidavit is made in good faith.

Familiarity

I have read the Local Rules of Court, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and much more.

The information in this affidavit is based on my own personal knowledge.

Facts

[fact001]

[fact002]

[fact003]

[fact004]

[fact005]

[fact006]

Request

[req001]

Thank you.

Verification Under Oath Pursuant to 28 USC §1746

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this [DD]th day of [MMMM] [YYYY].

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA	[dtSigned]
[plfName], Plaintiff/Affiant

BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™
Downloaded From www.TextBookDiscrimination.com
SELL YOUR OWN TEMPLATES (help others get the justice that they deserve)
BUY™	SELL™	SHOP™