IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY, FLORIDA

DIVISIONH

CITIZENS FOR SUNSHINE, INC., a

Florida not-for-profit corporation, and
ANTHONY LORENZO,
Plaintiffs,

vs. CASE NO. 2008 CA 8108 SC

CITY OF VENICE. et al. J

Defendants.
______~--------------------~I

ORDER GRANTING FEES TO PLAINTIFFS' LAWYERS

The lawyers for plaintiffs seek an award of fees for services rendered and costs incurred,

on behalf of plaintiffs in the prosecution of plaintiffs' claims in this case. On the evidence

presented!) the court fmds as follows:

Plaintiffs brought suit against the City of Venice and several elected and appointed city

officials to based on alleged violations of the Public Records Act, Chapter 119, Florida Statutes;

and the Government]n The Sunshine Law, Chapter 286~ Florida Statutes.

The suit was resolved by Settlement Stipulation formally executed by the City on March

16, 2009. Thls court approved and adopted the settlement stipulation in its Final Judgment

entered on April 1, 2009.

In the settlement stipulation, the City of Venice acknowledges that violations of Chapters

119 and 286 occurred and that plaintiffs' lawyers are entitled to recover reasonable fees and
costs. All defendants other than the City were dismissed pursuant to the terms of the settlement

sti pulation.

The City attacks the awards requested by plaintiffs' lawyers on a number of fronts.

First, the City takes the position that the ultimate settlement stipulation so closely

resembles a settlement proposed by the City in September, 2008, that the lawyers should be

denied compensation for time expended after September 25, 2008. The City believes that

plaintiffs' lawyers were simply padding their billings. The court rejects this argument. There

are a number of significant substantive differences between the settlement proposed in

September~ 2008 and the stipulation ultimately executed by the parties.

Along the same line, the City argues that plaintiffs unnecessarily prolonged this litigation

by failing to pursue summary judgment based on 4'admission'" allegedly made by one or more of

the individual defendants as reported in local news media. The court rejects this argument. Each

of the defendants vigorously denied any violation of the public records -or goverrunent in the

sunshine laws. Their own motions for summary judgment, and filings in support of those

motions, would have prevented this court from granting any such motions filed by plaintiffs.

The City attacks block billings and billings by multiple lawyers/paralegals for identical

work/events. There is merit to this argument. The court has factored block billing and multiple

billings for identical work into its award.

The City argues that plaintiffs' lawyers are not entitled to a multiplier. The court has

considered all the factors set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe~ 472

So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985); Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v .. Quanstrom, 555 So.2d 828

(Fla. 1990); and their progeny. The evidence presented does not support the application ofa

multiplier in this case. See~ e.g., Progressive Express Insurance Company v. Schultz~ 948
So.2d 1027 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 2007); and Weaverv. Schoo) Board of Leon Count!, 624 So.2d

761 (Fla.App. IDist. 1993).

The City a1so argues that plaintiffs' lawyers should not be awarded fees for detennining

the amount of fees to be awarded to them. The court agrees that the City~s position reflects the

current state of the law in Florida. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 629 So.2d 830

(Fla. 1993). Plaintiffs~ lawyers rely on a line of federal cases that permit an award of fees for

litigating the amount of fees. In the context of the case at bar, one could argue that the federal

rule would be more equitable. The federal rule would clearly promote involvement in public

interest cases by lawyers who might be unwilling to become involved in this type of litigation

knowing that substantial time and energy may be expended in litigating their own fees.

Nonetheless, this court is bound by, and must respect, the principle of stare decisis.

Finally, the City argues that plaintiffs' lawyers generally "churned" this case in order to

collect excessive fees. The City also argues the court should not award fees against the City for

work performed in the prosecution of the individual defendants. The court rejects the first

argument as not being supported by the evidence. This case was vigorously and zealously

litigated by all parties. The latter argument is simply disingenuous in view of the policy of the

City - prior to this suit being fiLed - that each city official be the custodian ofms or her own

records regarding City business. 1

The court finds the following hours and rates to be reasonable:

Andrea Mogensen, Esquire - 812 hours @ $300.00 per hour.

I The City has, since the filing oftbis suit, completely revised its policies regarding public record and compliance
with open government. The City's attorney Mr. Anderson, deserves this court·s acknowledgment and the public's
I

gratitude for this important accomplishment.

 Michael Barfield - 834 hours @ $120.00 per hour. 2

Matthew Leish, Esquire - 390 hours @ $385.00 and 5.1 hours @ $360.00 per hour.

Ken Tinkler, Esquire - 6.4 hours @ $3] 0.00 per hour.

Stephanie BoltoD, Esquire - 6.6 hours @ $285.00 per hour.

Monty Garside, Esquire - 5.2 hours @ $280.00 per hour.

Laurie Whitmore, Esquire-9.l hours @ $280.00 perhaur.

Michael Epanchin, Esquire - 26_9 hours @ $195.00 per hour.

Christopher Smartt Esquire - 12.7 hours @ $290.00 per hour.

Amy Carstensen, Esquire - 674.1 hours @ $260.00 per hour.

Barbara Rice -131 hours @ $120.00 per hour. 3

The court finds the following casts to be properly taxable:

Andrea Mogensen, Esquire:

Clerk filing fee - $255.00

Service of process - $60.00

Court Reporter Fees - $3,393.20

Witness Fees .. $36.00

Carlton Fields:

Court Reporter Fees - $18,048.24

Witness Fees - $723.50

Service of Process - $1')455.00

2 The City argues that somebow Ms. Mogensen's employment of Mr. Barfield was a violation of Rules Regulating
the Florida Bar. The court finds no violation of the rule. He can be referred to as paralegal, consultant, or
raraprofessional. No matter. His employment was entirely appropriate.
Local rates for paralegal services generally comport with that approved for Mr. Barfield.
 Plaintiffs' lawyers called three expert witnesses to testify at the hearing to determine the

amount of fees and costs. The expert witnesses were Greg Thomas, Esquire (reasonable time

and hourly rates); Professor Sandy Chance (impact and uniqueness of the instant case in the State

of Florida); and Professor Charles N. Davis (impact and uniqueness of the instant case

nationally). After hearing the testimony of the expert witnesses, particularly that touching on

their professiona1 qualifications and experience, the court believes that Professor Chance would

have been competent to testify to both the national and local impact of this case. It was not

reasonably necessary to call two experts to testify regarding the same subject matter.

The reasonable fee for Professor Chance's appearance and testimony is $6,000.00.

The reasonable fee for Mr. Thomas' appearance and testimony is $15,656.00.

Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. That Andrea Mogensen, Attorney at Law! recover from the City of Venice attorney

fees and paraprofessional fees in the amount of $343,680.00, and costs in the amount

of $3,744.20 for a total recovery of$347~424.20, for which let execution issue.

2. That the law finn of Carlton Fields recover from the City of Venice attorney fees and

paraprofessional fees in the amount of $359,769.50, and costs in the amount of

$20,226.74 for a total of $379,996.24, for which let execution issue.

3. In addition, plaintiffs' lawyers shall recover from the City of Venice the amount of

$21,656.00, for which let execution issue.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED at Venice~ Sarasota County, Florida this 25 th day of

Sep1ember, 2009.
 Circuit J

Copies to:
Andrea Flynn Mogensen, Esquire
Dale Scott, Esquire
Robert Anderson, Esquire
Matthew Leish, Esquire
Amy Leigh Carstensen, Esquire
James Green, Esquire