2:14-cv-00200 #70

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

1/143

Tracy L. ZubrodZUBROD LAW OFFICE, PC219 East 18th StreetCheyenne, WY 82001

Telephone: (307) 778-2557Facsimile: (307) 778-8225Email: [email protected]

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.ARNOLD & PORTER LLP370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4400Denver, Colorado 80202-1370Telephone: (303) 863-1000Facsimile: (303) 832-0428Email: [email protected]

Qusair MohamedbhaiArash JahanianRATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 100Denver, CO 80205Telephone: (303) 578-4400Facsimile: (303) 578-4401Email: [email protected]

Shannon P. MinterChristopher F. Stoll NATIONAL CENTER FORLESBIAN RIGHTS870 Market Street, Suite 370San Francisco, CA 94102Telephone: (415) 365-1335Facsimile: (415) 392-8442Email: [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 70 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 13

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

2/143

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF WYOMING

)

Plaintiffs, ))Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; )Ivan Williams and Charles Killion; )Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery; )Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and )Wyoming Equality, )

)v. ) Case No. 14-cv-00200-SWS

)Defendants, )

)Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity )as the Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in his official )capacity as Director of the Wyoming Department of )Administration and Information; Dave Urquidez, in his )official capacity as Administrator of the State of Wyoming )Human Resources Division; and Debra K. Lathrop, in her )official capacity as Laramie County Clerk, ) ______________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANUDUM IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS ______________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

On January 29, 2015, the Court awarded Plaintiffs the permanent declaratory and

injunctive relief they had sought when they first availed themselves of the federal courts three

and a half months prior. The Court declared that to deny Plaintiffs the right to marry and remain

married violated the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, and it

enjoined Defendants from carrying out and enforcing the laws and practices that violated these

rights. As prevailing parties in this civil rights action, Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable fees

and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiffs quickly achieved a high level of success in this case


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

3/143

3

involving significant constitutional issues. Plaintiffs’ counsel worked efficiently and without

duplication, have not submitted hours for their underlying work done on the related state case,

and have reduced their rates to reflect this legal market. Accordingly, the fees and costs that

Plaintiffs ask the State Defendants to pay are reasonable.

ARGUMENT

In an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the

prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

“In any fee request under 1988(b), a claimant must prove two elements: (1) that the claimant was

the ‘prevailing party’ in the proceeding; and (2) that the claimant’s fee request is ‘reasonable.’”

Robinson v. City of Edmond , 160 F.3d 1275, 1980 (10th Cir. 1998). The prevailing party in a

§ 1983 lawsuit is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees unless special circumstances would render

such an award unjust. Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983). “Where a plaintiff has

obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee.” Id. at 435.

Plaintiffs are prevailing parties who are making a reasonable request.1

I.

Plaintiffs Are the Prevailing Parties in This Case

First, Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this case. “Under [the Supreme Court’s]

generous formulation of the term, plaintiffs may be considered prevailing parties for attorney’s

fees purposes if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the

benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 109 (1992) (internal

quotations omitted). The Supreme Court has “repeatedly held that an injunction or declaratory

1 Plaintiffs’ counsel will file a supplemental application for additional fees incurred inconnection with any other work necessary to secure reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in thismatter. See, e.g., Hernandez v. George, 793 F.2d 264, 269 (10th Cir. 1986) ([T]his courtgenerally allows recovery of fees for attorneys’ work in seeking attorneys’ fees . . . . [W]ork inresolving the fee issue furthers the purpose behind the fee authorization in § 1988 which is toencourage attorneys . . . in vindicating federal civil rights policies.”) (citations omitted).


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

4/143

4

judgment, like a damages award, will usually satisfy that test.” Id. (citing Rhodes v. Stewart , 488

U.S. 1, 4 (1988) (per curiam)). Plaintiffs are the prevailing parties in this action because they

obtained an enforceable judgment against Defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief. On

January 29, 2014, the Court issued judgment with declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of

Plaintiffs and against Defendants on all of Plaintiffs’ claims. Doc. 65 at 2.

II. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Full Award of their Requested Fees

Second, the fees that Plaintiffs have submitted in this case are reasonable. “A court will

generally determine what fee is reasonable by first calculating the lodestar — the total number of

hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate — and then adjust the lodestar

upward or downward to account for the particularities of the suit and its outcome.” Phelps v.

Hamilton, 120 F.3d 1126, 1131 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 – 34). Plaintiffs

are requesting the lodestar, without any upward adjustment.

A. Summary of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Hours and Rates

Plaintiffs are requesting that the State Defendants pay a total attorney fee of $92,728.12.

The breakdown by law firm is as follows: Arnold & Porter LLP $41,139.62, National Center for

Lesbian Rights $20,562.50, Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC $22,600.00, and Zubrod Law Office, PC

$8,426.00. These amounts are supported by the attached declarations of counsel, curricula vitae,

and time sheets including specific descriptions and time spent on tasks performed. Ex. 1,

Declaration of Thomas Stoever with Attached Bios and Billing Statements; Ex. 2, Declaration of

Shannon Minter with Attached Resumes and Billing Statements; Ex. 3, Declaration of Qusair

Mohamedbhai with Attached Bios and Billing Statements; Ex. 4, Declaration of Tracy Zubrod

with Attached Billing Statement ; Ex. 5, Declaration of Bruce Moats with Attached Wyoming Bar

Survey. The summary of the fees requested is as follows:


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

5/143

5

Employee Firm Rate Hours Total Fee

Thomas Stoever Arnold & Porter LLP $325 35 $11,375

Shannon Minter National Center for Lesbian Rights $325 19.8 $6,435.00

Christopher Stoll National Center for Lesbian Rights $300 42.6 $12,780.00

Qusair Mohamedbhai Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC $300 21.9 $6,570.00

Amy Whelan National Center for Lesbian Rights $275 4.9 $1,347.50James Lyman Arnold & Porter LLP $262.40 101.6 $26,659.84

Tracy Zubrod Zubrod Law Office, PC $220 38.3 $8,426.00

Arash Jahanian Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC $200 70.7 $14,140.00

Aaron Belzer Rathod Mohamedbhai LLC $140 13.5 $1,890.00

Rebecca Golz (paralegal) Arnold & Porter LLP $133.25 23.3 $3,104.73

TOTAL 371.6 $92,728.12

B. Plaintiffs’ Hours Are Reasonable

“The first step in calculating fee awards is to determine the number of hours reasonably

spent by counsel for the party seeking the fees.” Ramos v. Lamm, 713 F.2d 546, 553 (10th Cir.

1983). Evaluation of the reasonableness of a prevailing party’s attorneys hours involves a

number of factors, several of which are analyzed in detail below. See Robinson, 106 F.3d at

1281; Ramos, 713 F.2d at 554.

1. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Are Entitled to a Fully Compensatory Fee

“‘[T]he most critical factor’ in determining the reasonableness of a fee award ‘is the

degree of success obtained.’” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992) (quoting Hensley, 461

U.S. at 436). The Supreme Court has guided: “[T]he district court should focus on the

significance of the overall relief obtained by the Plaintiffs in relation to the hours reasonably

expended on the litigation.” Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 569 (1986) (quoting Hensley,

461 U.S. at 435 (alterations in original)). Here, the Court has awarded Plaintiffs all the relief

they have sought in their complaint, namely, declarations that Defendants’ failure to grant and

recognize their marriages violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S.

Constitution, and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing and enforcing these

discriminatory practices. See Compl. (Doc. 1) at 21; J. (Doc. 65) at 2-3. Along the way,


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

6/143

6

Plaintiffs prevailed in their motion for preliminary injunction and motion for judgment on the

pleadings. See Doc. 44, 65. Accordingly, the reasonableness of the hours expended by

Plaintiffs’ counsel is reflected in the high level of success they have achieved.

2. The Importance of This Case Necessitated the Hours and Fees Incurred

Another factor supporting the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ hours is the overall public

interest served by Plaintiffs’ victory in this litigation. See, e.g., Ex. 1, Stover Decl. ¶ 15; Ex. 4,

Zubrod Decl. ¶ 14. The significance of the relief obtained is evident “[p]articularly in civil rights

cases such as this . . . .’” Joseph A. by Wolfe v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Servs., 28 F.3d

1056, 1060 (10th Cir. 1994). After all, “[u]nlike most private tort litigants, a civil rights plaintiff

seeks to vindicate important civil and constitutional rights that cannot be valued solely in

monetary terms.” Rivera, 477 U.S. at 574. “Potential liability for full fee awards can deter

violations of the civil rights laws, especially in situations where the fee award represents a

significant portion of a defendant’s financial exposure.” Ramos, 713 F.2d at 552. This case

affects the fundamental constitutional rights of many Wyoming citizens. As reflected in the

judgment of this Court, “those who wish to marry a person of the same sex have a fundamental

right to do so, and that fundamental right is protected by the Due Process and Equal Protection

Clauses of the United States Constitution.” Doc. 65 at 2.

3. Plaintiffs Expedited These Proceedings as Much as Possible, AchievingComplete Success in a Very Short Timeframe

“[W]hen examining an attorney’s fee claim, the district court should examine the hours

spent on each task to determine the reasonableness of the hours reported.” Shaw v. AAA Eng’g

& Drafting, Inc., 213 F.3d 538, 542 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal citation omitted). Plaintiffs’

counsel’s work on this case was extremely efficient and streamlined. Plaintiffs achieved

complete success in a case of significant constitutional magnitude in only three and a half


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

7/143

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

8/143

8

Ramos, 713 F.2d at 553. In exercising billing judgment, “[t]he prevailing party must make a

‘good-faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, and

otherwise unnecessary.’” Jane L. v. Bangerter , 61 F.3d 1505, 1510 (10th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434). Most significantly, though much of the work underlying this case

was done in connection with the related state court case, Courage v. Wyoming, et al., Plaintiffs’

counsel have not submitted any of those fees. See Ex. 1, Stoever Decl. ¶ 16; Ex. 3,

Mohamedbhai Decl. ¶ 18. The Supreme Court has held that fees may be granted for “‘some of

the services performed before a lawsuit is formally commenced by the filing of the complaint’ . .

. . if they are ‘both useful and of a type ordinarily necessary to advance the litigation’ in

question.” Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Cent. Pension Fund of Int'l Union of Operating Engineers

& Participating Employers, 134 S. Ct. 773, 783 (2014) (quoting Webb v. Dyer County Board of

Education, 471 U.S. 234, 243 (1985)). “Other federal courts have applied the majority opinion

in Webb . . . to allow for partial fee awards for work done in proceedings ancillary to a § 1983

action.” Schneider v. Colegio de Abogados de Puerto Rico, 187 F.3d 30, 46 n. 29 (1st Cir. 1999)

(listing cases). Courage involved essentially identical parties and similar legal theories.

Plaintiffs briefed the merits of their position in a motion for summary judgment, and the parties

engaged in discovery. The affidavits that this Court considered in granting Plaintiffs’ motion for

preliminary injunction had been gathered in connection with the motion for summary judgment

in the Courage litigation. Accordingly, there is a significant amount of work that advanced this

litigation that Plaintiffs have not submitted as recoverable fees.

6. The State Defendants’ Unreasonable Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Position Necessitated the Hours Plaintiffs’ Counsel Spent on This Case

“The Supreme Court has . . . recognized that part of an attorney’s calculus of the amount

of time reasonably necessary for a case is the vigor which the opponents bring to the dispute.”


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

9/143

9

Robinson, 160 F.3d at 1284. A “client cannot escape the consequences of tactics that undeniably

drive up the costs of litigation, even if such tactics amount to no more than aggressive

advocacy.” Latham v. First Marine Ins. Co., 16 F. App’x 834, 839 (10th Cir. 2001); see also

Robinson, 160 F.3d at 1284 (“The government cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to

complain about the time necessarily spent by the Plaintiffs in response.” (internal citations and

quotations omitted)).

Standing on its own, the State Defendants’ refusal to concede the blatant

unconstitutionality of their laws and practices in the face of binding law is enough to warrant a

significant fee award. See, e.g., Ramos, 713 F.2d at 556 (“[H]ad the state defendants not decided

to stonewall on all issues, . . . this case would have a different posture.”). Rather, they defended

an untenable position with no fewer than four attorneys. See Ex. 1, Stoever Decl. ¶ 14; Ex. 3,

Mohamedbhai Decl. ¶ 17. In opposing Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, the State

Defendants conceded that Plaintiffs “may ultimately succeed on the merits before this Court in

the present case,” but took the position of disagreeing with the binding Tenth Circuit decisions in

Kitchen and Bishop. Doc. 26 at 6. They conceded that Plaintiffs suffered irreparable

constitutional harm as a matter of law, yet contended that they had a right to continue defending

and enforcing unconstitutional laws and practices. They advanced the delay tactic of asking the

Court “a reasonable opportunity to evaluate and respond to Plaintiffs’ newly raised allegations.”

Id. at 7. The Court rejected these unjustified yet persistent defenses, and, as the State Defendants

predicted, Plaintiffs prevailed on all issues. Furthermore, rather than stipulating to a judgment

that was supported by the law and facts of this case, Defendants’ filed their own motion for

judgment on the pleadings, based on positions that were once again rejected by the Court. Thus,

in contrast to Defendant Lathrop, who cooperated with Plaintiffs and assisted the minimization


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

10/143

10

of fees incurred, the State Defendants unnecessarily prolonged this case and should have to pay

Plaintiffs’ fees and costs as a result.

C. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Rates Are Reasonable

Plaintiffs have submitted rates for their attorneys that are reasonable and reflective of the

legal market in which this Court sits. “The first step in setting a rate of compensation for the

hours reasonably expended is to determine what lawyers of comparable skill and experience

practicing in the area in which the litigation occurs would charge for their time.” Ramos, 713

F.2d at 555; see also Jane L., 61 F.3d at 1510 (“Hourly rates must reflect the ‘prevailing market

rates in the relevant community.’” (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984)). In

addition, “[t]he hourly rate should be based on the lawyers’ skill and experience in civil rights or

analogous litigation.” Ramos, 713 F.2d at 555. The rates for Plaintiffs’ counsel are supported by

the declaration of Bruce Moats, an 18-year Wyoming civil rights and constitutional lawyer, who

relies on his extensive experience as well as survey results of the Wyoming State Bar. Ex. 5.

Although Plaintiffs’ counsel could request San Francisco and Denver billing rates for this

case based on their expertise and experience, see, e.g., Reazin v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of

Kan., Inc., 899 F.2d 951, 983 (10th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court’s award of higher rates

for out-of-state counsel based on their expertise and experience); Rocky Mtn. Christian Church v.

Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Boulder Cnty., No. 06-CV-00554, 2010 WL 3703224, at *5 (D. Colo.

Sept. 13, 2010) (awarding higher hourly rates for attorney “with specialized knowledge and

skills in the areas of constitutional law.”), they seek rates consistent with those in the Wyoming

legal market as an exercise of billing judgment. Plaintiffs’ counsel have appropriately reduced

their out-of-market rates: Mr. Stoever from $795 to $325, Mr. Lyman from $640 to 262.40, and

Ms. Golz from $325 to $133.25, Ex. 1, Stoever Decl. ¶ 18; Mr. Minter from $675 to $325, Mr.


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

11/143

11

Stoll from $650 to $300, and Mrs. Whelan from $500 to $275, Ex. 2, Minter Decl. ¶ 18; Mr.

Mohamedbhai from $450 to $300, Mr. Jahanian from $325 to $200, and Mr. Belzer from $175 to

$140. Ex. 3, Mohamedbhai Decl. ¶¶ 7-9. Ms. Zubrod, who practices in Cheyenne, has

submitted her regular rate of $220. Ex. 4, Zubrod Decl. ¶ 10. Accordingly, Plaintiff ’s counsel’s

rates are exceeding reasonable.

III. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Recovery of Their Costs

Plaintiffs are also entitled to an award of expenses that would normally be billed to fee-

paying clients, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). As

detailed in the declarations of counsel, Plaintiffs incurred and are entitled to total costs of

$5,125.97 in this litigation. All of those costs were necessary to the litigation, including the

travel expenses associated with the preliminary injunction hearing. See Bee v. Greaves, 910 F.2d

686, 690 (10th Cir. 1990) (attorneys’ reasonable travel expenses should be awarded if normally

billed to private clients); Ginest v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Carbon C nty., Wyo., 423 F.Supp.2d

1237, 1240-42 (D. Wyo. 2006) (awarding out-of-state counsel reasonable hours and expenses

associated with travel to Wyoming). A Bill of Costs is being filed concurrently for statutory

costs, which comprise $1,651.45 out of the $5,125.97 in total recoverable costs.

IV. Plaintiffs Are Entitled to Interest on the Judgment

Plaintiffs request that the Court order that the prevailing interest rate apply to any award

from the date of the Court’s order awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. See Dill v. City

of Edmond , 72 F. App’x 753, 758 (10th Cir. 2003).

V. Plaintiffs Have Consulted with Counsel for All Defendants

Pursuant to Local Rule 54.3(a), Plaintiffs state that they have consulted with counsel for

the State Defendants on multiple occasions in an attempt to reach an agreement regarding


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

12/143

12

attorneys’ fees and costs. At the request of State Defendants’ counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent

their invoices on February 11, 2015. Plaintiffs obtained a two-week extension to file this motion

so that the parties could continue to negotiate. After numerous failed attempts at communication

since the extension was granted, the State Defendants’ counsel advised Plaintiffs’ counsel on

February 24 and 25, 2015 that due to their schedules they had not the opportunity to review the

invoices, and that Plaintiffs should file this Motion. The parties will continue to attempt to reach

a resolution. On February 26, 2015, counsel for Defendant Lathrop indicated that she takes no

position on the relief requested in this Motion.

DATED: February 26, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Arash JahanianArash JahanianQusair MohamedbhaiRATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 100Denver, CO 80205Telephone: (303) 578-4400Facsimile: (303) 578-4401Email: [email protected]


Tracy L. ZubrodZUBROD LAW OFFICE, PC219 East 18th StreetCheyenne, WY 82001Telephone: (307) 778-2557Facsimile: (307) 778-8225Email: [email protected]


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

13/143

13

Shannon P. MinterChristopher F. Stoll NATIONAL CENTER FORLESBIAN RIGHTS870 Market Street, Suite 370

San Francisco, CA 94102Telephone: (415) 365-1335Facsimile: (415) 392-8442Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been filed with the Clerk of Court onthis 26th day of February, 2015 and served upon the following:

Peter K. Michael,Attorney General of WyomingMartin L. Hardsocg,Deputy Attorney GeneralJames C. Kaste,Deputy Attorney GeneralJared S. Crecelius,

Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralRyan T. Schelhaas,Senior Assistant Attorney GeneralMichael M. Robinson,Senior Assistant Attorney General123 State Capitol BuildingCheyenne, WY 82002

Attorneys for the State Defendants

Mark Towne VossBernard P Haggerty310 W. 19th Street, Suite 320Cheyenne, WY 82001

Attorneys for the Laramie County Clerk

s/ Arash Jahanian

Arash Jahanian


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

14/143

Tracy L. ZubrodZUBROD LAW OFFICE, PC219 East 18th StreetCheyenne, WY 82001Telephone: (307) 778-2557Facsimile: (307) 778-8225Email: [email protected]


Qusair MohamedbhaiArash JahanianRATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC2701 Lawrence Street, Suite 100Denver, CO 80205Telephone: (303) 578-4400Facsimile: (303) 578-4401Email: [email protected]

Shannon P. MinterChristopher F. Stoll NATIONAL CENTER FORLESBIAN RIGHTS870 Market Street, Suite 370San Francisco, CA 94102Telephone: (415) 365-1335Facsimile: (415) 392-8442Email: [email protected]


Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 70-1 Filed 02/26/15 Page 1 of 23

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

15/143

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF WYOMING

)

Plaintiffs, ))Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; )Ivan Williams and Charles Killion; )Brie Barth and Shelly Montgomery; )Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; and )Wyoming Equality, )

)v. ) Case No. 14-cv-00200-SWS

)Defendants, )

)Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity )as the Governor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in his official )capacity as Director of the Wyoming Department of )Administration and Information; Dave Urquidez, in his )official capacity as Administrator of the State of Wyoming )Human Resources Division; and Debra K. Lathrop, in her )official capacity as Laramie County Clerk, ) _____________________________________________________________________________

DECLARATION OF THOMAS W. STOEVER, JR. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

__________________________________________________________________

I, Thomas W. Stoever, Jr., hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am a member in good standing of the Colorado State Bar. I am also a member

in good standing of the State Bars of California and Florida. I am a partner at the international

law firm of Arnold & Porter LLP. I have been asked to make this Declaration in Support of

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses. I have personal knowledge of

the matters stated in this Declaration and could and would confidently testify to these facts.

2. I attended the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley,

and graduated in 1990. After graduation from law school, I worked at the law firm of Covington

2


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

16/143

& Burling in Washington, D.C. In 1994, I moved from Covington & Burling to Arnold &

Porter’s office in Denver, Colorado. Arnold & Porter has offices in several locations around the

country and around the world, including, but not limited to, Washington, D.C., New York, San

Francisco, and London. The firm’s work runs the gamut from corporate and transactional

matters to litigation.

3. I have extensive experience litigating complex, multi-jurisdictional cases. This

has included environmental matters, antitrust matters, and mass tort cases. My experience has

included all phases of litigation, including motions practice, discovery, trials, and appeals. I

have handled cases in jurisdictions around the country, including, but not limited to, Colorado,

Florida, California, Texas, New York, Arizona, Utah, Montana, and Wyoming. I have argued

numerous appeals including, but not limited to, two en banc arguments before the Federal Circuit

Court of Appeals and an appearance in the United States Supreme Court (See Attachment 1).

4. In addition to my professional experience, I am an active member of the Colorado

Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the Faculty of Federal Advocates in the

District of Colorado. Over the years I have made several CLE presentations to peers and

colleagues regarding various aspects of litigation, legal ethics, and trial practice. I have also

served on the Board of Directors of several local, national, and international nonprofit

organizations.

5. L. James Lyman was an associate at Arnold & Porter. Mr. Lyman received his

law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law in 2007 (Order of the Coif). Mr.

Lyman was editor of the University of Colorado Law Review. After graduation he clerked for

the Honorable Lewis T. Babcock on the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

Mr. Lyman practiced before the state and federal courts of Colorado, the Court of Appeals for

3


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

17/143

the Tenth Circuit, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Mr. Lyman’s practice included representing clients in all phases of litigation (See Attachment 2).

In December 2014, Mr. Lyman left Arnold & Porter to become a trial attorney with the

Securities and Exchange Commission.

6. Arnold & Porter was retained in this litigation by the Plaintiffs to challenge

Wyoming’s laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-gender couples and

prohibiting recognition of valid marriages of same-gender couples entered into in other

jurisdictions. The individual plaintiffs in this action did not have the resources to retain private

legal counsel and could not financially afford paying the attorneys’ fees and expenses necessary

to proceed with this action. Arnold & Porter is therefore representing Plaintiffs pro bono.

Plaintiffs have agreed that any awarded attorneys’ fees and costs will belong and be paid to their

counsel.

7. After the Supreme Court struck down the Federal Defense of Marriage Act in

Windsor v. United States, 570 U.S. 12 (2013), I was approached by representatives from the

National Center for Lesbian Rights about the possibility of representing same-gender couples.

Beginning in early 2014, Mr. Lyman and I began to research and prepare a complaint for

injunctive relief to be filed in the Wyoming state courts. That complaint was filed on March 5,

2014. The Governor and the Laramie County Clerk were named as defendants. In addition to

filing a complaint, we filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Wyoming’s

constitution prohibited the application of Wyoming’s statute defining marriage as a union

between one man and one woman. At the Governor’s request, a hearing on that motion for

summary judgment was delayed so the parties could take discovery.

4


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

18/143

8. While that discovery was ongoing, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Kitchen

v. Herbert . Immediately after the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, Mr. Lyman and I

prepared and filed a complaint in federal court. That complaint was filed on October 7, 2014.

The next day we filed a motion for preliminary injunction.

9. I managed the process of researching and drafting the complaint, the motion for

preliminary injunction, and supporting papers. I took the lead at the hearing on the motion for

preliminary injunction. Two days after the hearing, the Court granted our motion and the

Governor chose not to appeal.

10. I served as lead counsel for Plaintiffs in this litigation. I was ultimately

responsible for making all strategy calls and deploying the team’s legal and other resources for

research, drafting, etc. I was also ultimately responsible for responding to the questions and

concerns of our clients and making sure they were fully informed regarding the status of the

litigation.

11. Plaintiff’s counsel litigated this case efficiently and without duplication of effort.

I brought my experience working with multiple law firms representing a single client (i.e., the

virtual firm model) to bear on this litigation.

12. This complex and groundbreaking litigation was expedited over a very short

period. As noted above, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction was filed almost

immediately after the filing of the complaint. A hearing was requested and scheduled shortly

thereafter. The time from filing a complaint to issuance of a preliminary injunction was just ten

days.

13. The Governor of Wyoming increased the workload for Plaintiffs’ counsel by

insisting on taking this matter to a hearing. As noted in the Court’s order issuing a preliminary

5


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

19/143

injunction, Kitchen v. Herbert was the law of the Tenth Circuit. The Court was obliged to follow

that law. And, most importantly, the Governor never argued to the contrary or put on any

evidence suggesting that the burden of a preliminary injunction would outweigh the benefit. The

Governor could have significantly reduced the fees and expenses accrued by Plaintiffs’ counsel

by agreeing to a preliminary injunction.

14. Moreover, the Governor had no fewer than four lawyers working on his

opposition to the motion for preliminary injunction. In addition, there were four lawyers present

at the preliminary injunction hearing. The Governor’s staffing decisions in this case are a further

reflection of its significance and complexity. The Court should consider the Governor’s staffing

when evaluating the reasonableness of the fee petition submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel.

15. Despite the demands and challenges, the efforts of Plaintiffs’ counsel produced an

excellent result. Plaintiffs prevailed on all claims in their complaint and helped to established

marriage equality in the Equality State. The lives of the Plaintiffs and thousands of other

families and individuals in Wyoming have been forever altered as a result of the Court’s decision

in this case, recognizing their fundamental rights to due process and equal protection under the

U.S. Constitution.

16. Attorneys and legal assistants at Arnold & Porter maintained detailed time

records. Those records are attached. In addition to myself and Mr. Lyman, Rebecca Golz, a

legal assistant at the firm, has billed time to this matter. These billing records reflect only the

time billed since the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in the Kitchen v. Herbert case. None

of the time spent on research, drafting the complaint filed in state court, preparing the motion for

summary judgment filed in state court, or appearing in that venue are part of Arnold & Porter’s

fee petition in this case. All of that time provided a foundation for the work done in federal

6


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

20/143

court. Put another way, we would have spent more time researching, drafting, and preparing to

argue in federal court, had we not done the work in state court.

17. Arnold & Porter is requesting to be compensated for 159.90 hours at an aggregate

rate of $257 per hour, which we believe is reasonable within the legal community given the

background, experience, and skill of the lawyers involved. Further, this rate is reasonable given

the exceptionally rare congruence and complexity, risk, and time demands of this case, as well as

the degree of success achieved.

18. This hourly rate is based upon comparable rates typically billed by Wyoming

firms in commercial cases, and what other attorneys with similar skill, reputation, and experience

charge for similar work. In commercial cases, my usual hourly billable rate is $795.00 an hour,

Mr. Lyman’s billable rate was $640.00 per hour, and Ms. Golz’ billable rate is $325.00 per hour.

However, in this case, we have adjusted my hourly billable rate to $325.00, Mr. Lyman’s billable

rate to $262.40, and Ms. Golz’ billable rate to $133.25.

19. Arnold & Porter is seeking a total award in fees of $41,139.62 (See Attachment 3).

Please note this figure does not include the time spent preparing our fee petition. In the event

Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ fee petition, Plaintiffs’ counsel will submit supplemental time

records, at the appropriate time, for any time incurred after February 1, 2015. These are expenses

that we typically charge to fee-paying clients.

20. In addition to fees, Arnold & Porter seeks to recover $2,775.72 in expenses. This

includes $659.39 for online research; $133.05 for copying; $1,100.00 for filing fees; and,

$628.14 for travel from Denver to Casper for the hearing on the motion for preliminary

injunction.

7


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

21/143

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Denver, Colorado on this 26th day of February, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.

8


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

22/143

ATTACHMENT 1


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

23/143

arnoldporter.com

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr. Partner

Tom Stoever is a partner in Arnold & PorterLLP's Denver office and represents clients incomplex litigation-including environmentalmatters, antitrust cases, consumer classactions, product liability, and commercialcases.

Environmental

Mr. Stoever has represented individuals and corporations inenvironmental litigation in both state and federal courts. He hasdefended clients in Superfund and regulatory actions, citizen suitsunder the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act cases, NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) litigation, toxic tort cases, andnatural resource damage claims. Mr. Stoever has, in addition,negotiated on behalf of his clients with federal and state agencies fora variety of permits for use of public lands. He has also representedclients in environmental insurance coverage litigation.

Ant i t rust

Mr. Stoever has represented corporations and standard-settingbodies in large, multiparty antitrust matters brought under federaland state competition statutes.

Product Liabi l i ty and Con sum er Class Act ions

Mr. Stoever has represented pharmaceutical manufacturers,consumer product makers, and technology companies inmultijurisdictional product liability and consumer class actionlitigation, managing cases from initiation through discovery and trialin jurisdictions around the country, including several jurisdictionsconsidered particularly hostile for corporate defendants. He has

represented clients at trial and managed large "virtual law firms"comprised of attorneys from firms around the country.

Pro Bono

Mr. Stoever's pro bono practice has focused on litigating claims onbehalf of veterans seeking benefits from the US government. He hasrepresented former service men and women in matters before the

Contact [email protected]

tel: +1 303.863.2328

fax: +1 303.832.0428

Suite 4400370 Seventeenth Street

Denver, CO 80202-1370

Areas of PracticeProduct Liabi lity Litigation

Environmental

Litigation

Legislative and Public Policy

Nanotechnology

Antitrust/Competition

Information Securi ty, ElectronicSurveillance and ComputerCrime

Consumer Products

Political Law, Government Ethics,and Lobbying Compliance

Energy

EducationJD, University of California,

Berkeley School of Law (BoaltHall), 1990

MA, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies ,1984

BA, Johns Hopkins University,1983

AdmissionsCalifornia

Colorado

Supreme Court of the UnitedStates

Various Federal Courts

Florida


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

24/143

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.

Arnold & Porter LLP 2

US Court of Veterans Appeals and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including two enbanc arguments before that court. He was recognized for his work on the Henderson v. Shinseki in the2011 Annual Report for the Veterans Consortium’s Pro Bono Program.

Mr. Stoever also represents a class of landowners in southern Colorado in litigation to obtain theirancestral rights to access large tracts of private land for grazing and timber.

Representative Matters

Representation of the owners of a large power plant in toxic tort litigation brought by neighborsalleging groundwater contamination by coal combustion by-products.

Representation of a consumer product manufacturer in a citizen suit brought pursuant to theEndangered Species Act.

Representation of a transportation company in the negotiation of an Incidental Take Permit andHabitat Conservation Plan under the Endangered Species Act.

Representation of Visa in antitrust litigation brought by American Express, Discover, and a

purported class of merchants.

Representation of a large resort company in permitting for ski areas on National Forest land.

Representation of Wyeth in the diet drug litigation. Responsible for overseeing all aspects ofthousands of cases in 17 states, Mr. Stoever developed and implemented strategies for fact andexpert discovery, the generation of scientific testimony, and the formation and staffing of teamsto prepare and try cases.

Representation of Philip Morris in its litigation with state attorneys general, health insurers, andconsumers in individual and class actions.

Representation of a standard-setting organization in antitrust litigation brought by a

manufacturer.

Representation of clients in large commercial litigation and arbitration.

Representation of investors in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) classaction.

Articles

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr. "Caution! Forest Plan Revisions Ahead" Ski Area Management, July 1,1996

Presentations

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr. "Presentation: Multi-jurisdictional Practice: A Trap for In-houseCounsel," Association of Corporate Counsel, Colorado Chapter, January 2006

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr. "Presentation: Ethical Issues for In-house Counsel in the Wake ofSarbanes Oxley," Association of Corporate Counsel, Colorado Chapter, December 2004

Advisories


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

25/143

Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.

Arnold & Porter LLP 3

"Reefer Madness - New Treasury Guidance for Banks Providing Financial Services to MarijuanaSellers" Mar. 2014

Multimedia

Daphne O'Connor, Jessica Mayer, Maurice A. Leiter and Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.. "Setting theGoals, Building the Team, Managing the Budget" July 19, 2012.


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

26/143

ATTACHMENT 2


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

27/143

arnoldporter.com

L. James Lyman Alumni

James Lyman assists clients at all stages of litigation, including pleading, discovery, trial,and appeal. James' litigation experienceincludes internal investigations and complexmotions practice in matters involving bothstate and federal government agencies,

including matters arising under the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Act. James has represented clients in class actions,arbitrations, and other complex litigation matters involving breach of

contract, breach of fiduciary duty, theft of intellectual property, civilfraud, and product liability.

James is an Associate of the American Arbitration Association'sInternational Center for Dispute Resolution Young and InternationalGroup and presents a Continuing Legal Education seminar addressing forum selection clauses and arbitration clauses entitled:"Making it Stick: Choosing a Forum and Staying There."

James served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Lewis T. Babcockof the United States District Court for the District of Colorado from2007 though 2009. While in law school, James was an editor of the

University of Colorado Law Review. He is the author of "CoalbedMethane: Crafting a Right to Sell from an Obligation to Vent." 78 U.Colo. L. Rev. 613 (2007).

Contact Information

[email protected]

tel: +1 303.863.2381

fax: +1 303.832.0428

Suite 4400370 Seventeenth Street

Denver, CO 80202-1370

Areas of Practice

Litigation

Education

JD, Order of the Coif, Universityof Colorado School of Law, 2007

BA in Communications, summacum laude, University of Colorado, 2004

Admissions

Colorado

US District Court for the Districtof Colorado

US Court of Appeals for theTenth Circuit

US Court of Federal Claims

US Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

28/143

ATTACHMENT 3


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

29/143

List of Fee and Disbursement Entries

Arnold & Porter LLP

From Transaction Date: 10/6/2014 to Transaction Date: 2/10/2015

National Center for Lesbian Rights

e

Timekeeper (Category)Tran Date Description

Hourly

Rate

Base

Time/Unit Value

Billed

T im e/ Un it Am ou nt Bi ll Nu m Pr eb ill Nu mPrint

Flag

Wyoming Marriage Equality Action

10/06/14

draft

federal complaint and motion for preliminary injunction;

10.90 6,976.00 10.90 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/07/14 Legal Assistant Services for J. Lyman:prepare draft summonses, praecipe for

summons and pro hac vice motion for Guzzo case in federal court.

2.50 812.50 2.50 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

10/07/14 Draft and revise federal complaint andprepare for filing;

draft

motion for preliminary injunction.

11.40 7,296.00 11.40 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/08/14 Revisions to federal complaint and

preliminary motion;

3.00 2,385.00 3.00 0 2713661 Y4387 Stoever, Thomas W. 0.00

10/08/14 Draft and revise preliminary injunctionmotion;

8.50 5,440.00 8.50 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/08/14 Legal Assistant Services for J. Lyman:

circulate affidavits for reference indraft motion for preliminary injunction;finalize file and serve pro hac vice

motion and motion for preliminaryinjunction.

2.90 942.50 2.90 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

10/09/14 Revisions to preliminary motion. 1.00 795.00 1.00 0 2713661 Y4387 Stoever, Thomas W. 0.00

10/09/14 Prepare for upcoming

preliminary injunction hearing;

6.30 4,032.00 6.30 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/09/14 Legal Assistant Services for J. Lyman:prepare, file and serve pro hac vice

motion for T. Stoever; preparesubpoena to appear for hearing;prepare waiver and acceptance of

service of subpoena to appear athearing; prepare and submit ECF

registration form.

3.70 1,202.50 3.70 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

Page: 1


262.40 2,860.16

262.40

262.40

262.40

133.25

133.25

133.25

325.00

325.00

333.13

2,991.36

975.00

2,230.40

386.43

325.00

1,653.12

493.03

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

30/143


Arnold & Porter LLP



e


Hourly

Rate

Base

Time/Unit Value

Billed


Flag

10/10/14 Legal Assistant Services for J. Lyman:prepare draft pro hac vice motions for

co-counsel.

1.10 357.50 1.10 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

10/10/14 Prepare for hearing next week in

Casper.


10/10/14 Research and prepare reply to countyresponse in opposition to preliminary

injunction.

3.30 2,112.00 3.30 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/12/14 Revise reply to county response to

motion for preliminary injunction;

.

3.30 2,112.00 3.30 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/13/14 Prepare for preliminary hearing on

Thursday in Casper.


10/13/14prepare for hearing;

research relating to hearing onpreliminary injunction motion.

7.60 4,864.00 7.60 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/14/14 prepare for

upcoming hearing;

10.50 6,720.00 10.50 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/14/14 Prepare for preliminary hearing in

Casper on October 16; revisions topleadings


Page: 2


262.40

262.40

262.40

262.40

133.25

325.00

325.00

325.00

146.58

650.00

865.92

865.92

1,300.00

1,994.24

2,755.20

1,625.00

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

31/143


Arnold & Porter LLP



e


Hourly

Rate

Base

Time/Unit Value

Billed


Flag


revisedcase files with recent court filings;prepared package to court clerk

.

5.00 1,625.00 5.00 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

10/15/14 Prepare for hearing on motion for preliminary injunction;


10/15/14 R evise reply in support of motion for

preliminary injunction and prepare for filing; travel to Casper for hearing;

12.00 7,680.00 12.00 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/16/14 Prepare for and argue motion for

preliminary injunction in Casper,Wyoming.


10/16/14 Legal Assistant Services for T.

Stoever: file and serve notice of attorney appearance.

0.50 162.50 0.50 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

10/16/14 Prepare for and attend hearing onmotion for preliminary injunction;

return travel for hearing.

9.80 6,272.00 9.80 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/17/14

regarding order on motionfor preliminary injunction.

1.40 896.00 1.40 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/17/14 Legal Assistant Services for J. Lyman:review and circulate court order

granting preliminary injunction andtemporary stay of federal case.

0.60 195.00 0.60 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

Page: 3


262.40

262.40

262.40

133.25

133.25

133.25

325.00

325.00

666.25

1,625.00

3,148.80

2,600.00

66.63

2,571.52

367.36

79.95

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

32/143


Arnold & Porter LLP



e


Hourly

Rate

Base

Time/Unit Value

Billed


Flag

10/20/14 Attend to calls withopposing counsel regarding entry of

injunction; review state providedmarriage forms and communicationswith county for compliance with

injunction.

2.70 1,728.00 2.70 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/20/14 Correspond with AG's office;correspond with team and clients.

1.00 795.00 1.00 0 2713661 Y4387 Stoever, Thomas W. 0.00


review and update case files withrecent court filings.

0.30 97.50 0.30 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

10/21/14 calls and emails with

county regarding licenses.

1.60 1,024.00 1.60 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/22/14 Discussion with state regardingstipulation; .

0.40 256.00 0.40 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/23/14 discussions with

county regarding stipulation for permanent injunction.

1.00 640.00 1.00 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/24/14 Revisions to joint stipulation for udgment;

.


10/24/14 Review county answer to complaint in

Guzzo v. Mead; attend to issuesrelating to final settlement of Guzzo v.Mead.

2.20 1,408.00 2.20 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

10/30/14 Prepare for and attend to call with

state regarding stipulation.

0.70 448.00 0.70 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

11/05/14 Legal Assistant Services for J. Lyman:prepare and circulate

draft stipulation for permanent injunction.

1.10 357.50 1.10 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

11/05/14 Work on redrafting the stipulated

udgment.



circulate recent filing from statedefendants regarding pending

deadlines in state court; circulaterecent filing from state defendantsregarding request for judgment on

pleadings in federal court.

0.20 65.00 0.20 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

11/11/14regarding state's motions

in federal and state cases.

1.80 1,152.00 1.80 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

Page: 4


262.40

262.40

262.40

262.40

262.40

262.40

262.40

133.25

133.25

133.25

325.00

325.00

325.00

708.48

325.00

39.98

419.84

104.96

262.40

325.00

577.28

183.68

146.58

325.00

26.65

472.32

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

33/143


Arnold & Porter LLP



e


Hourly

Rate

Base

Time/Unit Value

Billed


Flag

11/13/14 Attend to calls with defendants'

counsel regarding upcoming statusconference.

0.60 384.00 0.60 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

11/14/14 Revisions to various pleadings; 1.00 795.00 1.00 0 2713661 Y4387 Stoever, Thomas W. 0.00

11/14/14 Prepare for and attend status hearingin Courage v. Wyoming case.

0.50 320.00 0.50 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00


file and serve response to statedefendants' motion for judgment.

0.80 260.00 0.80 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

11/17/14draft

stipulation; draft response to state

motion for judgment.

2.20 1,408.00 2.20 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

11/19/14 Draft motion for judgment onpleadings.


11/21/14 Revise motion for judgment on the

pleadings in federal case and draftproposed order.

0.90 576.00 0.90 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

11/24/14 Legal Assistant Services for T.Stoever: file and serve plaintiffs'

motion for judgment on the pleadings.

1.20 390.00 1.20 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

11/24/14 Draft proposed order and finalize

motion for judgment for filing.

2.00 1,280.00 2.00 0 2713661 Y4261 Lyman, L. James 0.00

Page: 5


262.40

262.40

262.40

262.40

262.40

133.25

133.25

325.00

325.00

157.44

325.00

131.20

106.60

577.28

325.00

236.16

159.90

524.80

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

34/143


Arnold & Porter LLP



e


Hourly

Rate

Base

Time/Unit Value

Billed


Flag

12/02/14 Legal Assistant Services for T.Stoever: file and serve plaintiffs'

motion for judgment on the pleadings.

0.90 292.50 0.90 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

12/08/14 Review state's opposition to judgmenton pleadings and draft reply regarding

same.


12/12/14 Legal Assistant Services for T.

Stoever: assemble exhibits, finalize,file and serve plaintiffs' reply to motionfor judgment on pleadings.

1.70 552.50 1.70 0 2713661 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

01/05/15 W ork on filings with W yoming District

Court.

1.00 835.00 0 0 Y4387 Stoever, Thomas W. 0.00

Page: 6


133.25

133.25

325.00

325.00

119.93

325.00

226.53

325.00

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

35/143


Arnold & Porter LLP



e


Hourly

Rate

Base

Time/Unit Value

Billed


Flag

01/29/15 Legal Assistant Services for T.Stoever: circulate court order granting

udgment on pleadings and permanentinjunction as to WY state laws.

0.10 34.00 0 0 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00

01/30/15 Legal Assistant Services for T.Stoever: review state court file

regarding status of case and nextsteps before Judge Campbell.

0.70 238.00 0 0 Y7153 Golz, Rebecca A. 0.00


Page: 7

133.25

133.25

13.33

93.28

Fees Base Fees Billed

Time Value Time Value

159.90 41,139.62

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

36/143


Arnold & Porter LLP


eTimekeeper (Category)

Tran Date DescriptionHourly

Rate

Base

Time/Unit Value

Billed

T im e/ Un it Am ou nt Bi ll Nu m Pr eb ill Nu mPrintFlag

port Total

Number of Entries Billed ValueDisbursement Category

Westlaw Research 12 579.02147

Other Computer Research 3 80.371501

Travel Expenses 1 62.37151Hotel 2 178.731511

Travel Meals 2 76.80152

Local Transportation 1 310.24153

Duplicating 62 129.60160

Air Delivery Services 7 59.34172

Filing Fees 7 1,100.00187

Color copies 1 3.75194

Depositions & Transcript (original) 1 195.50202

Page: 10


Page: 8

Number of Entries

Disb Base Disb Billed

Unit Value Unit Value

869.00 2,775.72 869.00 2,775.72

8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

37/143

Tracy L. ZubrodZUBROD LAW OFFICE, PC219 East 18th StreetCheyenne, WY 82001Telephone: (307) 778-2557

Facsimile: (307) 778-8225Email: [email protected]

L. James Lyman*Thomas W. Stoever, Jr.ARNOLD & PORTER LLP370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4400Denver, Colorado 80202-1370Telephone: (303) 863-1000Facsimile: (303) 832-0428Email: [email protected]

Qusair MohamedbhaiRATHOD MOHAMEDBHAI LLC1518 Blake StreetDenver, Colorado 80202Telephone: (303) 578-4400Facsimile: (303) 578-4401Email: [email protected]

Shannon P. Minter*Christopher F. Stoll* NATIONAL CENTER FORLESBIAN RIGHTS870 Market Street, Suite 370San Francisco, CA 94102Telephone: (415) 365-1335Facsimile: (415) 392-8442Email: [email protected]


*Admission Pro Hac Vice


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

38/143

1

U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF WYOMING

Anne Marie Guzzo and Bonnie Robinson; IvanWilliams and Charles Killion; Brie Barth and ShellyMontgomery; Carl Oleson and Rob Johnston; andWyoming Equality,

Plaintiff(s),

v. Case Number: 2:14-cv-00200-SWS

Matthew H. Mead, in his official capacity as theGovernor of Wyoming; Dean Fausset, in his official

capacity as Director of the Wyoming Department ofAdministration and Information; Dave Urquidez, in hisofficial capacity as Administrator of the State ofWyoming Human Resources Division; and Debra K.Lathrop, in her official capacity as Laramie CountyClerk ,

Defendant(s).

DECLARATION OF SHANNON P. MINTER IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

I, Shannon P. Minter, hereby declare and state as follows:

1. I am an attorney admitted pro hac vice before this Court and represent the Plaintiffs

in this action. I am a member in good standing of the California State Bar and am admitted to

practice law in California state and federal courts, several U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme

Court of the United States. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this Declaration

and could and would competently testify to these facts.

2. This Declaration is filed concurrently with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

39/143

2

3. I am a 1993 graduate of Cornell University School of Law, and have been a licensed

attorney since that year. Since 2000, I have been the Legal Director of the National Center for

Lesbian Rights (NCLR), which is a national legal organization committed to advancing the civil

and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people and their families. In particular,

NCLR is committed to litigating precedent-setting cases at the trial and appellate court levels

throughout the country. A more complete recitation of my experience and background in civil

rights cases is included below and in my curriculum vitae, a copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit A.

MY MOST RELEVANT GENERAL BACKGROUND

4. NCLR maintains a diverse legal practice and I have litigated a variety of complex

cases in state and federal courts during my twenty-one year tenure at the organization. For

instance, I have litigated complex child custody, adoption, youth, immigration, employment

discrimination, and civil rights matters. I have also argued cases before trial and appellate courts,

including state supreme courts and federal circuit courts of appeal.

5.

I am an expert on legal matters involving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

(LGBT) people and frequently teach or lecture regarding these topics. For example, I have taught

courses on LGBT legal issues at Berkeley, Stanford, Santa Clara, American University

Washington College of Law, and several other laws schools.

6. I have authored several treatises and publications on legal issues related to the

LGBT community, including in the areas of family law, constitutional rights, employment

discrimination, and immigration / asylum, and frequently lecture around the country and abroad

regarding LGBT civil and human rights. For example, in September of 2013, I traveled to El


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

40/143

3

Salvador to meet with various governmental agencies about hate violence against LGBT people at

the request of the U.S. Department of State.

7. I also have extensive experience litigating challenges to state laws that prohibit

marriages by same-sex couples or recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples performed

in other jurisdictions. NCLR was lead counsel for same-sex couples in In re Marriage Cases, 43

Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008), representing fifteen (15) same-sex couples

in the case that made California the second state in the country to allow same-sex couples to

marry. I argued the case on behalf of the couples before the California Supreme Court, which

ruled in May 2008 that the California Constitution’s guarantees of due process and equal protection

prohibited the state from barring same-sex couples from marriage. The decision was also the first

ruling by a state supreme court that laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation are

subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection guarantee of a state constitution. The decision

followed more than four years of litigation in the California courts, including briefing and

argument by NCLR and its co-counsel in the San Francisco Superior Court and California Court

of Appeal. I was substantially involved in the briefing and strategy for the case throughout the

process, as was Senior Staff Attorney Christopher Stoll, who was then a partner at Heller Ehrman

LLP, one of the law firms that worked with NCLR on the case, and Constitutional Litigation

Director David Codell, who had his own firm at that time.

8. NCLR was also lead counsel in Strauss v. Horton, 46 Cal. 4th 364, 207 P.3d 48

(Cal. 2009). I argued that case before the California Supreme Court, which held that the marriages

of same-sex couples who legally married in California before the enactment of Proposition 8 were

valid.


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

41/143

4

9. In 2012, NCLR litigated Port v. Cowan, 426 Md. 435, 44 A.3d 970 (Md. 2012). I

argued that case before the Maryland Court of Appeals, the highest state court in that state, which

held that Maryland must recognize the marriages of same-sex couples who validly married in other

jurisdictions.

10. In 2011 through 2013, NCLR also successfully litigated Cozen O’Connor, P.C. v.

Tobits, et al., No. 11 – 0045, 2013 WL 3878688 (E.D. Penn. Jul. 29, 2013) in the Eastern District

of Pennsylvania establishing the validity of a marriage of a same-sex couple. In that case, Jennifer

Tobits lost her wife to a four-year battle with cancer. When she sought distribution of her wife’s

employee pension plan, the employer refused to distribute the funds based on the federal “Defense

of Marriage Act.” Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor , the

federal judge ruled that Jennifer was a legal spouse entitled to her wife’s pension plan.

11. NCLR also represented same-sex couples in Griego v. Oliver , a lawsuit challenging

New Mexico’s failure to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In that case, we secured a

unanimous decision from the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that the New Mexico

Constitution requires the state to allow same-sex couples to marry and to recognize the valid

marriages of same-sex couples performed outside the state.

12. In 2013, NCLR served as amicus counsel for the Leadership Conference on Civil

and Human Rights, the American Association of University Women, the Hispanic National Bar

Association, the Japanese American Citizens League, the League of United Latin American

Citizens, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Southern Poverty Law

Center and other civil rights organizations in United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013).

13. I, along with Christopher Stoll, Amy Whelan, and other NCLR legal staff, also

served or are serving as Plaintiffs’ counsel in multiple marriage cases around the country, including


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

42/143

5

in Utah, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Alabama. We prevailed on

dispositive motions and/or motions for preliminary injunctive relief in Utah, Idaho, Florida,

Tennessee, South Dakota, and Alabama and have a summary judgment motion pending in North

Dakota. In addition, on behalf of our Utah and Idaho clients, we prevailed in appeals before the

Ninth and Tenth Circuits, where we had primary responsibility for drafting all briefs. Presently,

we represent the plaintiffs in a challenge to Tennessee’s refusal to recognize the lawful marriages

of same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions, in which the Supreme Court of the United

States has granted a writ of certiorari and requested briefing and argument on the merits. Because

of our extensive experience and expertise litigating these cases, we have also provided legal

assistance and research to numerous other attorneys around the country who are litigating marriage

cases in both state and federal courts.

SUMMARY OF THE LITIGATION AND THE

EXCELLENT RESULTS OBTAINED

14. NCLR was retained in this litigation, along with co-counsel, on a fully contingent

basis to challenge Wyoming’s laws prohibiting the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex

couples and prohibiting recognition of valid marriages of same-sex couples entered in other

jurisdictions. The attorneys at Arnold & Porter served as lead counsel, and NCLR, Ms. Zubrod,

Mr. Mohamedbhai, and Mr. Jahanian were actively involved in strategy, drafting of key briefs and

documents, and decision making for the case. All counsel worked hard to divide tasks so that their

effort was not duplicative. Plaintiffs’ counsel conducted much of their business during telephone

conferences and through email, which served as a cost-effective means to divide tasks between the

attorneys and staff while eliminating the need for expensive travel by NCLR and co-counsel.

15. Plaintiffs’ counsel litigated this case efficiently and without unnecessary

duplication of effort. Our co-counsel at Arnold & Porter took primary responsibility for preparing


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

43/143

6

initial drafts of many of the pleadings and briefs, including the briefing regarding the dispositive

motions, which were reviewed and edited by co-counsel. Because of NCLR’s long experience

with the important constitutional issues involved in this case, we provided co-counsel with

guidance on all substantive briefs and oral argument and contributed significantly to the overall

strategy in the case.

12. The majority of the work in this case, including drafting and filing the complaint,

motions, oppositions, replies, and the oral argument, occurred within the month of October 2014.

13. Plaintiffs’ counsel litigated this case efficiently by using legal research and briefing

from NCLR’s other marriage cases around the country, where it was relevant and applicable. This

reduced the number of required hours significantly, making this motion extremely reasonable.

14.

Based on my extensive litigation experience, the results obtained in this case are

excellent. Plaintiffs prevailed on all of their claims, including that Wyoming’s laws violate their

rights to due process and equal protection of the laws, and also secured all of the relief requested.

BILLING RATES, RECORDS, REDUCTIONS, AND CHARTS

15.

As a non-profit litigation firm, NCLR does not charge our clients for legal services.

We do, however, seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses in cases where there are fee-shifting

statutes and our clients are the prevailing parties. NCLR and our co-counsel have incurred all

costs in this matter and Plaintiffs have agreed that any awarded attorneys’ fees and costs shall

belong to and be paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel.

16. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and accurate transcription of NCLR’s time

and expenses in this case from the beginning of the case through February 25, 2015. That time

reflects our work on the following major categories of work: (1) review and editing of the

complaint; (2) preparation of Plaintiffs’ successful motion for preliminary injunction, including


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

44/143

7

supporting affidavits and evidence and preparation for the hearing on that motion; and (3)

preparation of the motion for judgment on the pleadings; (4) work moving for reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs in this case.

17. I have been assisted in this case by NCLR’s Senior Staff Attorney, Christopher F.

Stoll. Amy Whelan, another Senior Staff Attorney, also worked on the attorneys’ fees motion.

Mr. Stoll’s and Ms. Whelan’s resumes are attached hereto as Exhibit C.

18. The current billing rates we seek in this case are as follows: $325 per hour for

myself, $300 per hour for Christopher Stoll, who has 20 years of litigation experience in complex

civil and constitutional cases, and $275 per hour for Amy Whelan, who has 14 years of litigation

experience in complex civil and constitutional cases. As the supporting declaration of Bruce T.

Moats shows, these rates are consistent with those charged in the Wyoming market for attorneys

with similar, extensive experience litigating complex constitutional cases. Our requested rates are

also reasonable because we could seek San Francisco billing rates for this case based on our

extensive expertise and experience, as well as Plaintiffs’ inability to find local counsel that

specialize in constitutional matters. See e.g. Reazin v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc.,

899 F.2d 951, 983 (10th Cir. 1990) (affirming district court’s award of higher rates for out-of-state

counsel based on their expertise and experience); Rocky Mountain Christian Church v. Bd. of

Count y Com’rs of Boulder County, No. 06-CV-00554, 2010 WL 3703224, at *5 (D. Colo. Sept.

13, 2010) (awarding higher hourly rates for attorney “with specialized knowledge and skills in the

areas of constitutional law.”); Swisher v. U.S., 262 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1213-14 (D. Kan. 2003)

(awarding non-local hourly rates where Plaintiff was unable to find local counsel and where legal

issues were not “routinely litigated” in the court). My rate in the San Francisco market is $675 per

hour, Chris Stoll’s rate is $650 per hour and Amy Whelan’s is $500 per hour.


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

45/143

8

19. NCLR and our co-counsel performed work efficiently, effectively, with extreme

diligence, and without unnecessary duplication. Based on my experience litigating complex civil

rights cases, I believe the hours recorded by NCLR staff on this case to be extremely conservative.

We have nevertheless made billing judgment reductions for the purpose of eliminating any

possible duplication, overstaffing or overwork. For instance, we did not record significant

amounts of time we spent communicating about strategy and emailing with co-counsel about

various litigation-related issues and strategy. Also, we do not seek fees for the two paralegals in

our office who worked on this case. Finally, we are not requesting any of the time our attorneys

or legal staff spent on the related Courage v. Wyoming litigation in state court.

20. Following the exercise of the billing judgment reductions described above, NCLR’s

total claimed lodestar for merits work and fees-for-fees work through February 25, 2015 is

$20,562.50. We also seek $1,606.53 in travel expenses, for a total request of $22,169.03. See

Exhibit B. Travel expenses are typically charged to fee-paying clients and all of these expenses,

which were incurred by one attorney to attend the hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction

/ temporary restraining order, were necessary to the litigation. Chris Stoll was the only NCLR

attorney who traveled to Wyoming for the hearing, which was essential to Plaintiffs’ success. Mr.

Stoll assisted our co-counsel before and during the hearing by offering his knowledge and insights

concerning legal arguments, presentation of evidence, and overall strategy based on his experience

with dozens of similar hearings and trials in marriage equality cases around the country.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Washington, D.C. on this 26th day of February 2015.

Shannon P. Minter (pro hac vice)Attorney for Plaintiffs


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

46/143

EXHIBIT A


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

47/143

SHANNON PRICE MINTER

Legal Director

EDUCATION AND BAR ADMISSIONS

Cornell Law School, J.D., 1993

Honors: Magna Cum Laude, Order of the Coif, Graduation Address

Activities: Symposium Editor, CORNELL I NTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL

Cornell University, Ph.D. program, English & American Literature, 1984-88

Honors: Mellon Fellow, Andrew White Fellow

University of Texas at Austin, B.A., 1983

Honors: Phi Beta Kappa

Bar Admissions: California (1993); admitted to CA state and federal courts, several U.S.

Courts of Appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court

EXPERIENCE

National Center for Lesbian Rights Legal Dir ector , 2000-present; Senior Staff Attorney , 1996-1999

Legal director of national civil rights organization with offices in California and Washington,

D.C. with nationwide impact litigation and policy practice.

Litigation: Serve as lead counsel in state and federal impact cases, including child

custody, adoption, youth, immigration, employment discrimination, and other areas.

Supervise legal team of 13 in-house counsel and manage co-counsel relationships with

other legal organizations and law firms. Coordinate national network of 40 to 45 familylaw and estate planning attorneys and legal scholars who develop new legal strategies for

protecting same-sex couples and their children.

Legislation: Draft local, state, and federal anti-discrimination and family recognition bills

and regulations affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people.

Policy advocacy: Develop and implement national and state policy initiatives relating toLGBT parents, students, youth, immigrants, elders, and prisoners. Examples include:

testimony as expert on gender identity discrimination before House Committee onEducation and Labor (June, 2008); development with Child Welfare League of America

of best practice guidelines for serving LGBT youth in foster care and juvenile justicesettings (2006); development of model safe school policies for San Francisco and Los

Angeles Unified school districts (2004).


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

48/143

2

National Association of Publi c Interest Law Fellow , 1993-1995

Created national legal and public policy advocacy program to address abuse of gay, lesbian,

bisexual and transgender youth in mental health system.

American University Washington College of Law

Visiting Professor, Constitutional Law Summer Program, 2011-present

Whittier Law School Visiting Professor , Transgender Rights, Summer 2010

Santa Clara Law School Lecturer , Gender, Sexuality, and the Law, Spring 2004

University of San Francisco School of Law Adjunct Professor of Law, Sexual Orientation and the Law, Fall 2003

University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) Adjunct Professor of Law, Gender, Sexuality and the Law, Spring 2003

Golden Gate School of Law Adjunct Professor of Law, Sexual Orientation and the Law, Spring 2003

Stanford Law School Adjunct Professor of Law, Gender, Sexuality, and the Law, Spring 2001

The Schomberg Library African-American Fiction and Periodicals Project Editorial Assistant to Henry Louis Gates, Jr., 1988-1990Responsible for identifying and preserving fiction and book reviews published in nineteenth

and early twentieth century African-American owned or edited newspapers in the U.S.

SAMPLE PUBLICATIONS

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL AND TRANSGENDER FAMILY LAW. Coauthored with Courtney G.

Joslin (West Publishing 2012).

TRANSGENDER R IGHTS. Co-edited with Paisley Currah and Richard M. Juang (MinnesotaUniversity Press 2006).

The Great Divorce: The Separation of Equality and Democracy in Contemporary Marriage

Litigation, 19 U NIV. OF SOUTHERN CALIF. R EV. OF L. & SOCIAL JUSTICE 89 (2010)

Representing Transsexual Clients, in SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE LAW (West Publishing

2012).

Same-Sex Marriage and Its Implications for Employee Benefits, 9 EMPLOYEE R IGHTS AND

EMPLOYMENT POLICY JOURNAL 499 (2005).

Unprincipled Exclusions: The Struggle to Achieve Judicial and Legislative Equality for

Transgender People, (with Paisley Currah) 7 WILLIAM & MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND


8/9/2019 2:14-cv-00200 #70

49/143

3

THE LAW 37 (2000). Published in Elizabeth Bernstein and Laurie Schaeffer, eds.,

R EGULATING SEXUALITY (Routledge 2005).

Preface, SOCIAL SERVICES WITH TRANSGENDERED YOUTH, Gary Mallon, ed. (2000).

Beyond Second-Parent Adoption: The Uniform Parentage Act and Intended Parents, (with

Kate Kendell) 2 GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF GENDER AND THE LAW 29 (2000).

Do Transsexuals Dream of Gay Rights? Getting Real About Transgender Inclusion in the Gay

Rights Movement , 17 NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL JOURNAL OF HUMAN R IGHTS 589 (2000).

TRANSGENDER EQUALITY. Coauthored with Paisley Currah (National Gay & Lesbian TaskForce 2000).

Lesbians and Gay Men as Adoptive Parents: A Child Welfare Perspective, in ADOPTION

FACTBOOK III (National Council for Adoption, 1999).

Diagnosis and Treatment of Gender Identity Disorder in Children, in Matthew Rottnek, ed.,

SISSIES AND TOMBOYS: GENDER NONCONFORMITY AND HOMOSEXUAL CHILDHOOD (NYUPress 1999).

Lesbians and Political Asylum: Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Lesbian Human Rights, in A

R ESOURCE GUIDE FOR ATTORNEYS R EPRESENTING LESBIANS AND GAY MEN IN ASYLUM

CASES (International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission 1996).

Lesbian Rights in the United States, in Rachel Rosenbloom, ed., U NSPOKEN R ULES: SEXUAL

ORIENTATION AND WOMEN'S HUMAN R IGHTS (Cassell 1996).

Sodomy and Public Morality Offenses Under U.S. Immigration Law: Penalizing Lesbian and

Gay Identity, 26 CORNELL I NTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL 771 (1993).

SELECTED PRESENTATIONS

Keynote: “Realizing the Dream of Equality for All,” New Mexico Bar Association, May 1,2013

“Winning Cases, Losing Children: The Human Impact of Litigation in LGBT Impact Cases,”Roundtable Discussion, Law & Society Conference, San Francisco, June 3, 2011.

“LGBT Legal Issues in Utah,” State Judges Annual Judicial Conference, Homestead, Utah,

May 5, 2011

Plenary, “What the LGBT and Disability Rights Movements Can Learn from One Another,”

Jacobus tenBroek Disability Law Symposium, Bridging the Gap between the Disability Rights

Movement and Other Civil Rights Movements, April 14, 2011

Panel, “How Does it Get Better? New Directions in LGBT Equality,” "Gay Rights as Human

Rights" Conference at the Harvard Kennedy School, April 15, 2011

“The Relevance of Martin Luther King To LGBT Advocacy,” Martin Luther King Memorial,

Case 2:14-cv-00200-SWS Document 70-2 Filed 02/26/15

Documents

2:14-cv-00200 #70