City ordered to pay nearly $10,000 in attorney fees for Parker Hotel owner
By
Brandy Chandler-
Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss has ruled that the city of Hillsboro must pay nearly $10,000 in attorney fees for Jack Hope regarding the litigation between the city and Hope, owner of the Parker Hotel.
In the initial claim requesting attorney fees, an amount was not specified. Earlier this month, a motion filed by Hope's attorneys requested $400 per hour. Coss ruled Wednesday that an appropriate fee would be $200 per hour, brining the total cost the city must pay to $9,389.56.
Coss ruled in July that Hope's attorney Joseph L. Trauth Jr., "Hope is entitled to collect attorneys' fees because he asserted claimed that 1) Hillsboro violated Hope's state and federal constitutional rights by attempting to destroy Hope's private property pursuant to a city ordinance that was in conflict with the Ohio Revised Code and therefore invalid and 2) Hillsboro denied Hope his procedural right to due process rights as guaranteed by both the Ohio and United States Constitutions ... As a prevailing plaintiff in this case, Hope is entitled to recover his attorney's fees he expended to right the constitutional wrong committed by Hillsboro."
On May 20 Coss filed an entry granting a motion for summary judgment which stated the city of Hillsboro's ordinance regarding dangerous buildings was unconstitutional. Hope had filed a complaint against the city of Hillsboro on June 25, 2009, "alleging that he had received a letter dated June 8, 2009 that it intended to solicit bids for the demolition of (Hope's buildings, including the Parker Hotel) located at 131-137 W. Main St., Hillsboro, Ohio. (Hope) obtained legal counsel and an amended complaint was filed on Sept. 4, 2009. (The city) filed its answer and counterclaim seeking approval of the court for demolition of the building."
The suit was filed in response to a letter sent to Hope by Hillsboro Deputy Law Director Kathryn Hapner, who also represented the city on the case, "informing him that (the city) intended to solicit bids for destruction (of the aforementioned properties) on July 6, 2009. It indicated that the buildings constitute a threat to the public" according to court documents. Hope was sent a letter informing him that he must bring the buildings up to code or the city would solicit bids to demolish them. Since the May 20 ruling, the Hillsboro City Council has voted to implement changes to the dangerous buildings ordinance, which added an appeals process and changed the amount of time an individual has to appeal a ruling by the city's housing inspector.
In the entry Coss filed this week, "The Court finds that in determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded, the Court must determine the reasonableness of said fees for the jurisdiction in which the case is brought. While $400 per hour may be reasonable and customary in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Court finds that rate is not reasonable and customary for this area. Defendant’s witness testified that customary attorney fees are $150.00 per hour in Highland County. The Court from personal knowledge is aware that some attorneys in the county are charging more than that.
"Therefore, the Court determines that it will award attorney fees to Plaintiff based on an hourly rate of $200.00 per hour for the services of attorney Joseph Trauth, and $160 per hour for Barrett Tullis. The Court has carefully submitted the billing attached to Mr. Trauth’s affidavit. The Court finds that the 42 U.S.C. 1988(B) does require an award of attorney fees and costs associated with the filing and prosecution of claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, it does not require an award of attorney fees for prosecution or defense of claims brought by either party under state law. Therefore, the Court will disallow all fees claimed not related to the 42 U.S.C.1983 claims."
px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;"> Coss included a detailed billing outline of the hours and costs in the entry, and noted cuts made for the billing on work that was not directly related to the case.
According to the entry, a copy of the billing was sent to both the plaintiff and the defendant. The court addressed omissions pointed out by the plaintiff, but the defendant did not respond to the e-mail.
"This is the final approval by the Court and it will not be reviewed further unless there is a mathematical error in this entry which will be corrected by a nunc pro tunc if discovered."
Highland County Common Pleas Court Judge Rocky Coss has ruled that the city of Hillsboro must pay nearly $10,000 in attorney fees for Jack Hope regarding the litigation between the city and Hope, owner of the Parker Hotel.
In the initial claim requesting attorney fees, an amount was not specified. Earlier this month, a motion filed by Hope's attorneys requested $400 per hour. Coss ruled Wednesday that an appropriate fee would be $200 per hour, bringing the total cost the city must pay to $9,389.56.
Coss ruled in July that Hope's attorney Joseph L. Trauth Jr., "Hope is entitled to collect attorneys' fees because he asserted claimed that 1) Hillsboro violated Hope's state and federal constitutional rights by attempting to destroy Hope's private property pursuant to a city ordinance that was in conflict with the Ohio Revised Code and therefore invalid and 2) Hillsboro denied Hope his procedural right to due process rights as guaranteed by both the Ohio and United States Constitutions ... As a prevailing plaintiff in this case, Hope is entitled to recover his attorney's fees he expended to right the constitutional wrong committed by Hillsboro."
On May 20 Coss filed an entry granting a motion for summary judgment which stated the city of Hillsboro's ordinance regarding dangerous buildings was unconstitutional. Hope had filed a complaint against the city of Hillsboro on June 25, 2009, "alleging that he had received a letter dated June 8, 2009 that it intended to solicit bids for the demolition of (Hope's buildings, including the Parker Hotel) located at 131-137 W. Main St., Hillsboro, Ohio. (Hope) obtained legal counsel and an amended complaint was filed on Sept. 4, 2009. (The city) filed its answer and counterclaim seeking approval of the court for demolition of the building."
The suit was filed in response to a letter sent to Hope by Hillsboro Deputy Law Director Kathryn Hapner, who also represented the city on the case, "informing him that (the city) intended to solicit bids for destruction (of the aforementioned properties) on July 6, 2009. It indicated that the buildings constitute a threat to the public" according to court documents. Hope was sent a letter informing him that he must bring the buildings up to code or the city would solicit bids to demolish them. Since the May 20 ruling, the Hillsboro City Council has voted to implement changes to the dangerous buildings ordinance, which added an appeals process and changed the amount of time an individual has to appeal a ruling by the city's housing inspector.
In the entry Coss filed this week, "The Court finds that in determining the amount of attorney fees to be awarded, the Court must determine the reasonableness of said fees for the jurisdiction in which the case is brought. While $400 per hour may be reasonable and customary in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Court finds that rate is not reasonable and customary for this area. Defendant’s witness testified that customary attorney fees are $150.00 per hour in Highland County. The Court from personal knowledge is aware that some attorneys in the county are charging more than that.
"Therefore, the Court determines that it will award attorney fees to Plaintiff based on an hourly rate of $200.00 per hour for the services of attorney Joseph Trauth, and $160 per hour for Barrett Tullis. The Court has carefully submitted the billing attached to Mr. Trauth’s affidavit. The Court finds that the 42 U.S.C. 1988(B) does require an award of attorney fees and costs associated with the filing and prosecution of claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, it does not require an award of attorney fees for prosecution or defense of claims brought by either party under state law. Therefore, the Court will disallow all fees claimed not related to the 42 U.S.C.1983 claims."
Coss included a detailed billing outline of the hours and costs in the entry, and noted cuts made for the billing on work that was not directly related to the case.
According to the entry, a copy of the billing was sent to both the plaintiff and the defendant. The court addressed omissions pointed out by the plaintiff, but the defendant did not respond to the e-mail.
"This is the final approval by the Court and it will not be reviewed further unless there is a mathematical error in this entry which will be corrected by a nunc pro tunc if discovered."
[[In-content Ad]]