Free Motion for Attorney Fees - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

‘ . 'IIIDOCIQITIMSQI =·¤¤ IIBIITIED
‘ REQUIRED EYTHE I
HITIGT GIHIGIWS ADIIIIIIITIIATWE Q-·r'a. ao tooeeo
FOLICIII IRD PROCEDURES IAIIUAL T8 HECENED __ COPY
1 Eduardo J. Cela a (AZ Ba1· No. 014747) »
Winsor Law Fiiim, PLC SEP 0 8 2005
2 Bank of America Tower I cream u s onsrancr couar
1201 S. Alma School Rd., Suite 11100 I ¤I$`I“iiIG`V Of AFNZONA
3 Mesa, AZ 85210 __§;€_“{,,r.ar... »»Vr~ M-~—-!· DEW"'
Telephone (480) 505-7044
4 Fax (480) 503-8353
5 ATTORNEYS FOR TAXI DEFENDANTS
6
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 • Dorsey and San Luis Yuma Transit, Inc., an Case No.: CIV03-1447-PHX-RCB
10 · rizona corporation, `
ll Piaimira.,
12 S
13 ity of San Luis; Victor Stevens; Alejandro Ruiz;
Ioseph Harper; Captain Oscar Garcia; Officer
14 rnest Lugo; Officer Julian Zargoza; Jose M. AXI I)EFEN|)ANT$’ M()TI()N FOR
eras d/b/a Martin’s Taxi; Eieuterio Torres dfb/a · TT()RNEY’S FEES ANI)
15 I orres Company; Ramon Alberto Angulo Arce I ONTAXABLE COSTS
• la Taxi E1 Guero; Teodoro Romero dfb/a
1 6 ' omero’s Taxi; Filibert Ramirez dfb/a Ramirez’s
I axi; Pilar Bedoy dfbfa Pilar'I`axi Service; Pedro
U . anta Cruz d/b/a Pedro’s Taxi Service; Mario A.
18 I ostado, dfb/a Mario’s Taxi #1 and Mario’s Taxi
- ; Javier Camacho Nunc, d/b/a Nunos Taxi
19 . ervice #2; Javier Nuno, Jr. dfb/a Nunos Taxi
. ervice #1; Armando Linarez dfb/a Linarez Taxi
2 0 ab; Jose Antonio Lea] Duarte dfb/a Lea1’s Taxi;
· tonio Cisneros
2 1 • Ia Economy Taxi Service #1; Artie Boyd d/b/a
ou1‘tesyCab; Marcelino Zamora Espuerra dfb/a
2 2 helo’s Taxi; Mario D. Buchanan d/b/a
uchanan’s Taxi #1, Buchanan’s Taxi #3,
23 ucl1ar1an’s Taxi #6, Buchanan’s Taxi #7,
24 uchanan’s Taxi #8, and Buchanan’s Taxi #9;
» ergio Buchanan d/b/a Buchanarfs Taxi #2
2 5 uchanan’s Taxi #4 and Buchanan’s Taxi #5; Rosa
aria Bedo dfbfa Brenda’s Taxi #1 and Brenda’s
Case 2:O3—cv—O1447—F1CB Documeat 66 Filed O9/O8/2005 Page 1 of 4

axi #2; Jesse F. Martinez dfb/a Black & White
1 ab; Jose Bedoy dfb/a Bedoy Taxi Service #1,
2 edoy Taxi Service #2, and Bedoy Taxi Service
3; Deliino Bedoy d/b/a Bedoy’s Taxi; Jesus
3 edoy Carrasco dfb/a Bedoy’s Taxi Service #1,
edoy’s Taxi Service #2, Bedoy’s Taxi Service #3,
4 d Bedoy’s Taxi Service #4.
5 Defendants.
6
—, Defendants, Jose M. Heras dfb/a Martin’s Taxi; Ramon Alberto Angulo Arce d/b/a
8 Taxi El Guero; Pilar Bedoy d/b/a Pilar Taxi Service; Pedro Santa Cruz d/b/a Pedro’s Taxi
Service; Mario A. Tostado, dfb/a Mario’s Taxi #1 and Mario’s Taxi #2; Javier Camacho Nuno,
9 d/b/a Nunos Taxi Service #2; Armando Linarez dfb/a Linarez Taxi Cab; Marcelino Zamora
10 Espuerra dfb/a Chelo’s Taxi; Mario D. Buchanan d/b/a Buchanan’s Taxi #1, Buchanarfs Taxi
11 #3, Buchanan’s Taxi #6, Buchanan’s Taxi #7, Buchanan’s Taxi #8, and Buchanan’s Taxi #9;
12 Sergio Buchanan d/b/a Buchanan’s Taxi #2 Buchar1an’s Taxi #4 and Buchanan’s Taxi #5; Rosa
Maria Bedoy dfb/a Brer1da’s Taxi #1 and Brenda’s Taxi #2; Jose Bedoy d/b/a Bedoy Taxi
13 . _
Service #1, Bedoy Taxi Service #2, and Bedoy Taxi Service #3; Delfino Bedoy dfbfa Bedoy’s
14 Taxi; Jesus Bedoy Can·asco dfb/a Bedoy’s Taxi Service #1, Bedoy’s Taxi Service #2, Bedoy’s
15 Taxi Service #3, and Bedoy’s Taxi Service #4, (hereinafter the "Taxi Defendants") through
16 counsel tmdersigned, hereby file their Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Related Non-Taxable
17 Expenses pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 2.20 of the
Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and 42 U.S.C.§ 1988. In
18 support thereof, the following is stated:
19
20 On August 25, 2005, this Court entered an Order granting Taxi Defendants’
21 Motion for Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs Seventh, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh and
22 Tweltih Claims for Relief which included claims based on 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985.
I 22 42 U.S.C. § 1988 entitles the Taxi Defendants as the prevailing party in this case to
24 their attorney’s fees. The statute reads as follows:
2 5
Case 2:O3—cv—O1447-RCB Docume°nt 66 Filed O9/O8/2005 Page 2 of 4

1
In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a,
2 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318 @
U.S.C.A. § 1681 et seq.], the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 [Q
3 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb et seq.], the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000cc et seq.], title VI of the Civil Rights
4 Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d et seq.], or section 13981 of this title, the
coun, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing patty, other than the United
5 States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs, except that in any action
brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officers
6 judicial capacity such officer shall not be held liable for any costs, including
attorney's fees, unless such action was clearly in excess of such officer's
7 jurisdiction.
8
2 The statute states that the court "in its discretion" may allow a fee, but that discretion is
10 not without limit: the prevailing patty "should ordinarily recover an attomey’s fee unless
ll
special circumstances would render such an award unjust. " Newman v. Piggie Park
12
Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 966, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968); Hensley v.
13 -
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1937, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The award of Taxi
14
15 Defendants’ reasonable attorney’s fees would not be unjust. Thus, Taxi Defendants should be
16 allowed their reasonable attorney’s fees.
17 Taxi Defendants have incurred twelve thousand four hundred and twenty five dollars
18 ($12,425.00) in attomey’s fees, and five hundred and fifteen dollars and twenty-five cents
19 ($515.24) in related non-taxable expenses.
29 WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 that this Court
21 award Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees in the amount of $12,425.00 and related non-taxable costs
22 in the ameum er $515.24.
23 I
///
24
Case 2:O3—cv—O1447-RCB Documeiit 66 Filed O9/O8/2005 Page 3 of 4

‘,_. , Q
1
2 DATED this Sth day of September, 2005. _
Eduardo J. Celay " "
5 WINSOR LAW FIRM, PLC
6 Bank of America Tower
1201 S. Alma School Rd., Suite 11100
_ 7 Mesa, AZ 85210
Attomeys for Taxi Defendants
a 8
9
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11
ORIGINAL of the foregoing
12 filed this 8"` day of September, 2005, with:
Clerk, United States District of Arizona
» 13 Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse
Suite 130
14 401 w. washington street
1 5 Phoenix, Arizona 85003
1 6 . . .
COPY of the foregoing delivered this
17 8th day of September, 2005 to:
18 Hon. Robert C. Broomfield -
Senior United States District Judge
. 1 9 Sandra Day O’Conn0r U.S. Courthouse
401 W. Washington Street
2 O Phoenix, Arizona 85003
2 1
2 2 Scott J. Mikulecky, Esq.
Sherman & Howard L.L.C.
23 90 South Casc de Avenue, Ste 1500
Colo do Spri s, Colorado 80903
24 - _ . __
i` it >· i
25 ..··e.JrsL£_
Case 2:O3—cv—O1447-RCB Documéht 66 Filed O9/O8/2005 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01447-RCB

Document 66

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01447-RCB

Document 66

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01447-RCB

Document 66

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:03-cv-01447-RCB

Document 66

Filed 09/08/2005

Page 4 of 4