Robert W. Otto and Julies H. Hamilton v. City of Boca Radon, Florida and County of Palm Beach, Florida

Miami, Florida personal injury lawyers represented the Plaintiffs who sued on civil rights violation theories un 42 U.S.C. 1983.



Otto and Hamilton are marriage and family therapists licensed to practice mental health counseling in Florida. They sued Palm Beach County and the City of Boca Raton in the West Palm Beach division of the Southern District of Florida, alleging that or dinances passed by the County and City prohibiting "Sexual Orien tation Change Efforts” (SOCE) counseling violated their own and their clients' First Amendment rights. They sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary damages. The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys associated with Liberty Counsel, a on profit organization with an office in Orlando, Florida. Initially, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the challenged ordinances. But the plaintiffs appealed that order, and we reversed, holding that the ordinances violated the First Amendment. Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854, 859, 872 (11th Cir. 2020). On re mand, after the district court entered a preliminary injunction consistent with the mandate of this Court, the defendants each made offers of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a). The plaintiffs settled their claims against the defendants by accepting the offers, and the district court entered its final judgment in the plaintiffs' favor on all their claims.



The plaintiffs then moved for an award of attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. They sought $2,115,018 in at torney's fees ($1,410,012 for approximately 2,275 hours billed at current rates, plus a 150% enhancement to account for the "undesirability” of the case) and $12,864.30 in nontaxable expenses, for a

total award of $2,127,882.30. The defendants objected to several components of the fee application, including the request for current rates; the inclusion of time billed for preparing the fee application, which the defendants contended was excluded by the Rule 68 offers of judgment; the proposed 150% multiplier; and some of the requested expenses. The magistrate judge agreed with most of the defendant's objections and entered a report recommending that

the district court grant the application in part and deny it in part. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in its entirety, awarding the plaintiffs $736,227.53 in attorney's fees and $659.92 in expenses. The plaintiffs now appeal that order.

The District Court was ordered to increase the award of attorney’s fees to $884,374.77, for a total award of costs in the amount of $885,034.69.