STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL REDISTRICTING PANEL/media/PDFs/Presentation/Hippert Plaintiffs... · STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL REDISTRICTING PANEL All-152 ... Support if Zachman Plaintiffs

STATE OF MINNESOTA

SPECIAL REDISTRICTING PANEL

All-152

Sara Hippert, Dave Greer, Linda Markowitz, Dee Dee Larson, Ben Maas, Gregg Peppin, Randy Penrod and Charles Roulet, individually and on behalf of all citizens and voting residents of Minnesota similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, and

Kenneth Martin, Lynn Wilson, Timothy O'Brien, Irene Peralez, Josie Johnson, Jane Krentz, Mark Altenburg and Debra Hasskamp, individually and on behalf of all citizens of Minnesota similarly situated,

Intervenors, and

Audrey Britton, David Bly, Cary Coop, and John Mcintosh, individually and on behalf of all citizens of Minnesota similarly situated,

Intervenors, vs.

Mark Ritchie, Secretary of State of Minnesota; and Robert Hiivala, Wright County Auditor, individually and on behalf of all Minnesota county chief election officers,

Defendants.

HIPPERT PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

ATTORNEYS' FEES

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Sara Hippert et al. (the "Plaintiffs") bring this motion pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1988(b). Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and

costs because they were prevailing plaintiffs in this litigation. They request the Panel to

award them $225,000 for fees, an amount that, when adjusted for increases in hourly

billing rates for lawyers over the past decade, is comparable to or less than the fees

requested in the most recent prior redistricting litigation. They also request that the Panel

award them $20,985.66 for costs and expenses actually incurred.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs filed this action on January 21, 2011 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and

1988 to redress violations of the United States Constitution and to obtain declaratory

relief pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 555.01 et seq. See generally Complaint (Jan. 21, 2011).

Plaintiffs alleged that the congressional and legislative districts in Minnesota were

unequally apportioned based on the 2010 United States Census and violated the rights of

Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals under the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the Minnesota

Constitution. !d.

Plaintiffs petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to appoint a Special

Redistricting Panel to enact new congressional and legislative redistricting plans in

advance of the 2012 elections in the event that the Minnesota Legislature and Governor

failed to do so. See Petition for Appointment of Special Redistricting Panel (Jan. 25,

2011 ). The Minnesota Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs' petition and appointed the

Special Redistricting Panel. See Supreme Court Order (Feb. 14, 2011); see also Supreme

Court Order Appointing a Special Redistricting Panel (Jun. 1, 2011).

The Special Redistricting Panel accepted briefs and argument from the Plaintiffs

and Intervenors concerning the adoption of redistricting principles to guide the

development of new plans. See Order Stating Redistricting Principles and Requirements

for Plan Submissions (Nov. 4, 2011). The Special Redistricting Panel also accepted

proposed redistricting plans as well as supporting briefs and argument from the parties

regarding the proposals. See e.g., Hippert Legislative Brief (Nov. 18, 2011); Hippert

Congressional Brief (Nov. 18, 2011); Order on Scope of January 4, 2012 Oral Argument

(Dec. 23, 2011).

The Minnesota Legislature and Governor did not enact redistricting plans, and, the

Special Redistricting Panel issued final orders adopting new congressional and legislative

plans for Minnesota on February 21, 2012. See Final Order Adopting a Congressional

Redistricting Plan (Feb. 21, 2012); Final Order Adopting a Legislative Redistricting Plan

(Feb. 21, 2012). The Panel held that "the population of the State of Minnesota is

unconstitutionally malapportioned among the state's current congressional districts

established following the 2000 census ... " and that "the population of the State of

Minnesota is unconstitutionally malapportioned among the state's current legislative

districts established following the 2000 census ... " See Final Order Adopting a

Congressional Redistricting Plan, at 4 (Feb. 21, 2012); Final Order Adopting a

Legislative Redistricting Plan, at 5 (Feb. 21, 2012).

2

Because the previously established districts were unconstitutional, the Panel

enjoined Defendants from using those districts in the 2012 primary and general elections,

and the Panel adopted its own congressional and legislative redistricting plans. See Final

Order Adopting a Congressional Redistricting Plan, at 22 (Feb. 21, 2012); Final Order

Adopting a Legislative Redistricting Plan, at 22 (Feb. 21, 2012). While the Panel did not

adopt in its entirety any redistricting plan proposed by a party, the Panel held that "certain

elements from each proposed redistricting plan are reflected" in both the congressional

plan and the legislative plan that the Panel adopted. See Final Order Adopting a

Congressional Redistricting Plan, at 7 (Feb. 21, 2012); Final Order Adopting a

Legislative Redistricting Plan, at 8 (Feb. 21, 2012). No party has taken an appeal or

otherwise challenged those final decisions.

ARGUMENT

I. PLAINTIFFS ARE PREVAILING PARTIES UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 provides that citizens may seek relief from persons who, under color

of any statute, deprive any citizen of constitutional rights. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section

1988(b) allows a prevailing party in a civil rights action to recover reasonable attorneys'

fees as part of its costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); see also Shepard v. City of St. Paul, 380

N.W.2d 140, 143 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) ("Attorneys for successful civil rights plaintiffs

should recover a fully compensatory fee.") (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 103 S.Ct. 1933,

1940 (1983)).

"[T]he United States Supreme Court requires an award of attorney fees to a

prevailing party unless special circumstances would render an award unjust." Welsh v.

3

City of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117, 124 (Minn. 1984) (citing Newman v. Piggie Park

Enters., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968)). Because the congressional intent of authorizing fee

awards is to encourage enforcement of civil rights laws, courts must liberally construe

section 1988(b) to achieve that end. See Reome v. Gottlieb, 361 N.W.2d 75, 77 (Minn.

Ct. App. 1985).

A party is deemed to be a prevailing party in an action brought under section 1983

if that party "has succeeded on any significant issue in litigation which achieve[ d] some

of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit." Tex. State Teachers Ass 'n v.

Garland Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 791-92 (1989) (quotation omitted). For a party

to prevail in an action, there must be only some resolution of the action that changes the

nature of the relationship of the parties. Id.

Here, Plaintiffs succeeded on significant issues in the litigation and achieved the

benefits they sought in bringing the action. Plaintiffs asked the Special Redistricting

Panel to declare unconstitutional the congressional and legislative redistricting plans

established after the 2000 Census. The Panel granted that relief, enjoined use of the

previous districts, and adopted new redistricting plans that reflect elements of the plans

proposed by Plaintiffs.

The Panel's final orders altered the relationship between the Plaintiffs and the

Defendants by preventing the Defendants - certain state and county officials - from

conducting elections using the previous districts. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are prevailing

parties within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and are entitled to reasonable

attorneys' fees. See Zachman et al. v. Kiffmeyer et al., No. C0-01-160, Order Awarding

4

Attorney Fees, at 2-5 (Minn. Special Redistricting Panel, Oct. 16, 2002); Crain v. City of

Mountain Home, Ark., 611 F.2d 726, 730 (8th Cir. 1979) (awarding attorneys' fees after

city attorney election ordinances were declared unconstitutional); see also In re Kan.

Cong. Dist. Reapportionment Cases, 745 F.2d 610, 611 (lOth Cir. 1984) (holding that

"the existing congressional districts were unconstitutional" and that "[t]he plaintiffs'

constitutional rights therefore were threatened, and they did not need to rely on [the

secretary of state's] assertion that he would not enforce the existing districts."); Daggett

v. Kimmelman, 617 F. Supp. 1269, 1274 (D. N.J. 1985), affd and remanded, 811 F.2d

793 (3d Cir. 1987) ("[S]tate legislative-apportionment cases secure rights for which

section 1983 provides a remedy .... ").

II. PLAINTIFFS SHOULD BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS.

The amount of a fee award under section 1983 depends upon a number of factors,

including "the plaintiff's overall success; the necessity and usefulness of the plaintiff's

activity in the particular matter for which fees are requested; and the efficiency with

which the plaintiff's attorneys conducted that activity." Jenkins v. Missouri, 127 F.3d

709, 718 (8th Cir. 1997); see also State v. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Prods., 490 N.W.2d

888, 896 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992), aff'd, 500 N.W.2d 788 (Minn. 1993) (affirming an ward

of attorney fees where the court considered, inter alia, fees customarily charged for

similar legal services).

In prior redistricting litigation, the successful parties sought and were awarded

fees that partially compensated them for the cost of the litigation. In Zachman, the

5

Zachman parties requested $114,230.43 in fees. See Affidavit of Timothy D. Kelly in

Support if Zachman Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Disbursements

(June 26, 2002). The Cotlow parties requested $139,895. See Bill and Memorandum of

Costs and Disbursements and Affidavit of Alan W. Weinblatt (May 16, 2002). The Moe

parties requested $132,636.25. See Affidavit of Brian Melendez (May 29, 2002).

Ventura requested $54,192.75. See Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff-Intervenor Jesse

Ventura's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, at 11 (May 20, 2002).

Notably, the request by the Zachman parties did not include all the fees incurred,

but was limited to an amount that they deemed reasonable to request from the panel. See

Affidavit of Timothy D. Kelly in Support if Zachman Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'

Fees, Costs and Disbursements (June 26, 2002) ("Kelly & Berens, P.A. declines to seek

attorney fees or expenses in this proceeding."). The Zachman panel awarded each of the

principal parties in the litigation $100,000 in attorneys' fees. See Zachman, Order

Awarding Attorneys' Fees (Oct. 22, 2002). The Zachman panel awarded $51,057.75 in

attorneys' fees to Ventura, and also awarded each party up to $4,500 in costs. Id.

This litigation was as complex, hard-fought, and time-intensive as the Zachman

litigation. It concerned a topic of critical importance. Plaintiffs sought to vindicate the

constitutional rights of all Minnesota voters, and not just their own constitutional rights.

Effective representation of Plaintiffs required analyzing a large amount of data and

synthesizing that data into persuasive arguments. All of the parties involved were

represented by competent counsel who presented effective arguments on behalf of their

clients. Plaintiffs' counsel prepared detailed submissions for the Panel in support of

6

Plaintiffs' proposed redistricting plans and in opposition to the redistricting plans

proposed by the other parties, which were helpful to the Panel in developing their final

redistricting plans.

The total fees incurred by Plaintiffs were greater than the amount sought in this fee

application. See Affidavit of Eric J. Magnuson, at ,-r 14; see also Affidavit of Tony P.

Trimble, at ,-r 10. However, balancing all of the factors that are involved in a fee award,

the Hippert plaintiffs respectfully request an award of $225,000 in fees, plus $20,985.66

in costs. When adjusted for increases in attorney billing rates over the last decade, the

amount of fees requested by Plaintiffs is comparable to, and in fact lower than, the

average amount requested by the principal parties in the most recent prior redistricting

litigation. See Affidavit of Eric J. Magnuson, at ,-r 13. The costs requested were actually

incurred and were necessary for effective representation of the Plaintiffs.

CONCLUSION

This litigation was necessary because the Governor and the Legislature failed to

adopt new congressional and legislative districts after the 2010 Census. By initiating and

participating in this litigation, Plaintiffs served a critical role in protecting the

constitutional rights of the citizens of Minnesota. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b ), Plaintiffs

are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Panel grant this motion for attorneys' fees

and costs.

7

BRIGGS AND MORGAN, P.A.

Eric . Magnuson ( #006 1 Elizabeth M. Brama (#03 47 Michael C. Wilhelm (#0387655)

2200 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-2157

TRIMBLE & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Tony P. Trimble, #122555 Matthew W. Haapoja, #268033 10201 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 130 Minnetonka, MN 55 3 0 5

ATTORNEYS FOR HIPPERT PLAINTIFFS

8

STATE OF MINNESOTA


All-152


Plaintiffs, and


Intervenors, and


Intervenors, vs.


Defendants.

1

AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC J. MAGNUSON

STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)

I, Eric J. Magnuson, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am an attorney and shareholder with the law firm of Briggs and Morgan,

P.A. I represent Plaintiffs Sara Hippert et al. (the "Plaintiffs") in the above-captioned

litigation. This affidavit is based on my personal knowledge.

2. I am a 1976 graduate of William Mitchell College of Law. Before

graduation, I served as law clerk to the Honorable Douglas K. Amdahl, Chief Judge of

the Hennepin County District Court. After graduation, I served as law clerk to the

Honorable Robert J. Sheran, Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court. From 1977

to 2007, I practiced law in the Litigation Department of Rider Bennett. I was the head of

that firm's appellate practice group, and I served as managing partner. In 2007, I joined

Briggs and Morgan, P .A.

3. In June of 2008, I was named the Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme

Court. After serving as Chief Justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, I returned to

private practice at Briggs and Morgan, P.A. in July of2010.

4. Among other professional activities, I have served as President of the 8th

Circuit Bar Association, President of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers,

President of the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association, Co-Chair of the American Bar

Association Section of Litigation Appellate Practice Committee, and Co-Chair for the

Appellate Advocacy Committee of the American Bar Association Tort Trial and

Insurance Practice Section. I have served as an associate professor at William Mitchell

2

College of Law, the University of St. Thomas School of Law, and the Humphrey Institute

of Public Affairs.

5. During my years of private legal practice, I have worked on hundreds of

litigated matters. My practice has focused primarily on appellate matters, but I also have

regularly consulted with trial attorneys on complex procedural and substantive issues.

6. I am familiar with the prevailing hourly rates charged by lawyers m

Minneapolis and St. Paul. As the managing partner at Rider Bennett, I was responsible

for setting the hourly rates charged by litigation lawyers. At both Rider Bennett and

Briggs and Morgan, P .A., I have supervised the handling of litigation matters by other

lawyers and reviewed and approved fee statements sent to clients. I have also served as

an expert witness and special master in fee disputes. I am familiar with what constitutes

reasonable attorneys' fees in litigation matters and what work is reasonably necessary to

represent clients in such matters.

7. During this litigation, Plaintiffs were represented by two law firms: Briggs

and Morgan, P.A. and Trimble & Associates, Ltd. Briggs and Morgan, P.A. was

primarily responsible for drafting briefs, preparing presentations, and representing

Plaintiffs in proceedings before the Special Redistricting Panel. Briggs and Morgan

brought special expertise to the litigation, including service by Elizabeth Brama as Panel

Counsel in the 2001 redistricting litigation. Trimble & Associates provided strategic

advice and counsel and assisted with the preparation of briefs and representation of

Plaintiffs in proceedings before the Special Redistricting Panel. Trimble & Associates

has substantial experience with previous redistricting litigation.

3

8. Each of the attorneys who worked on this matter is a practicing member of

the Minnesota bar and is in good standing. During this litigation, these attorneys engaged

in: (i) legal and demographic research; (ii) consulting with and advising clients; (iii)

consulting with demographic consultants; (iv) analyzing existing and proposed

redistricting plans; (v) drafting and revising briefs, pleadings, and presentations; (vi)

analyzing the pleadings, briefs, arguments, and proposed redistricting plans of other

parties involved in the litigation; and (vii) preparing for and presenting oral arguments

and Powerpoint presentations to the Special Redistricting Panel.

9. The hourly rates of attorneys in the Minneapolis and St. Paul metropolitan

area have significantly increased since the last award of attorneys' fees in redistricting

litigation in Minnesota. A September 2000 billing rate survey by management

consultant, Robert Hayden, shows that the hourly billing rates for attorneys at large firms

in Minneapolis and St. Paul in 2000 were as follows:

1st Quartile Mean 3 rd Quartile High-Level Equity $315 $283 $255

Partner Mid-Level Equity $280 $262 $250

Partner Low Level Equity $225 $215 $205

Partner Associate (Class of $165 $157 $160

1996)

10. I have also recently reviewed a May 2011 survey by Price Waterhouse

Cooper concerning the rates charged by lawyers in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area.

According to the May 2011 Price Waterhouse Cooper survey, the hourly billing rates for

attorneys at large firms in Minneapolis and St. Paul in 2011 were as follows:

4

1st Quartile Median 3rd Quartile High-Level Equity $725 $630 $600 Partner Mid-Level Equity $474 $468 $430 Partner Low-Level Equity $343 $328 $325 Partner Associate (Class of $277 $270 $256 2007)

11. The hourly rates charged by Plaintiffs attorneys are consistent with

reasonable and customary rates charged in the Minneapolis and St. Paul legal community.

The rates charged are equivalent to or less than the median prevailing rates identified in

the 2011 billing survey from Price Waterhouse Cooper.

12. Comparing the 2000 Robert Hayden survey with the 2011 Price

Waterhouse Coopers survey, the rates for attorneys in the Minneapolis and St. Paul

metropolitan area have increased over the past decade by approximately:

• 122% for high-level equity partners;

• 78% for mid-level equity partners;

• 52% for low-level equity partners; and

• 72% for mid-level associates.

On average, attorneys' fees in the Minneapolis and St. Paul metropolitan area increased

by 81% from 2000 to 2011.

13. The average fee request submitted in 2012 by the three principal parties in

Zachman was $128,920. See Affidavit of Timothy D. Kelly in Support of Zachman

Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Disbursements (June 26, 2002)

5

(requesting $114,230 in attorneys' fees); Bill and Memorandum of Costs and

Disbursements and Affidavit of Alan W. Weinblatt (May 16, 2002) (requesting $139,895

in attorneys' fees); Affidavit of Brian Melendez (May 29, 2002) (requesting $132,636 in

attorneys' fees). Accounting for the average increase of 81% in attorney fee rates over

the past 10 years, an equivalent amount in today's legal community is $233,345. When

indexed to today's rates for attorneys in the Minneapolis and St. Paul area, Plaintiffs'

request for $225,000 in attorneys' fees in this litigation is less than the average request

for attorneys' fees by the principal parties in the Zachman litigation.

14. The actual attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiffs in this litigation exceed the

$225,000 in attorneys' fees requested by Plaintiffs. In light of the current circumstances

of the state, balancing all of the factors involved in determining a reasonable attorneys'

fees award, and considering the amount of attorneys' fees requested by the principal

parties in the Zachman litigation, $225,000 represents a reasonable award of attorneys'

fees to Plaintiffs for their efforts in this litigation. In stating this opinion, I have

considered the experience of the attorneys involved, the responsibility they assumed, the

difficulty of the issues presented, the amount of time spent in prosecuting the litigation,

the customary and usual fees in the community, the matter in dispute, and the results

obtained. The work was actually performed for the Plaintiffs' benefit and was necessary

for their proper representation. No charges for any unnecessary or duplicative work or

work unrelated to this matter have been submitted in support of this motion.

15. Briggs and Morgan, P.A. advanced $15,452.76 in costs to Plaintiffs during

this litigation. These costs were incurred for the following:

6

ITEM COSTS Delivery Services $653.16 Digital Reproductions $3,166.38 Copies $626.82 Color Printing $8,671.00 Long Distance Telephone $108.02 Westlaw $1,683.58 Court Reporter Fees $94.40 Transcripts $291.77 Services $157.63

TOTAL $15,452.76

16. Trimble and Associates, Ltd. advanced $5,861.91 in costs to Plaintiffs

during this litigation. These costs were incurred for the following:

ITEM COSTS Photocopies $4,649.75 Teler>_hone $41.75 Postage $23.80 Courier $113.00 Binders $165.50 Mileage/Parking $539.10

TOTAL $5,532.90

1 7. The total costs advanced to Plaintiffs during this litigation by Briggs and

Morgan, P.A., and Trimble and Associates, Ltd. is $20,985.66.

18. I have reviewed the costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this litigation. Each of

the costs were actually incurred by Plaintiffs and were necessary for their proper

representation. No charges for unnecessary or duplicative costs or costs unrelated to this

matter have been submitted in support of this motion.

7

Dated: May \o , 2012.

Subscri~e~ sworn to before me on this ay of May, 2012.

jy,g}J_J&d/1,~ Not Public

8

STATE OF MINNESOTA


All-152


Plaintiffs, and


Intervenors, and


Intervenors, vs.


Defendants.

1 460575Svl

AFFIDAVIT OF TONY P. TRIMBLE

STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)

I, Tony P. Trimble, being duly sworn, state as follows:

1. I am an attorney and the owner of the law firm of Trimble & Associates,

Ltd. I represent Plaintiffs Sara Hippert et a!. (the "Plaintiffs") in the above-captioned

litigation. This affidavit is based on my personal knowledge.

2. I have been a practicing member of the Minnesota bar in good standing

since October 1980.

3. During my years of private legal practice, I have worked on many litigated

matters, including complex constitutional and civil rights litigation and redistricting

litigation in Minnesota. In 2001-02, I represented the Zachman et al. plaintiffs in

Zachman v. Kiffmeyer, Minnesota Special Redistricting Panel, Case No. C0-01-160.

4. In this case, I was assisted by Matthew W. Haapoja and Mark D.

Fosterling. Matthew Haapoja is an attorney at Trimble & Associates, Ltd., who has been

a practicing member of the Minnesota bar in good standing since October 1996. Mark

Fosterling is an attorney at Trimble & Associates, Ltd., who has been a practicing

member of the Minnesota bar in good standing since May 2009.

5. Matthew Haapoja has assisted me in numerous constitutional and civil

rights litigation matters, and he had substantial involvement in the previous Zachman

redistricting litigation.

6. During this litigation, Plaintiffs were represented by two law firms: Briggs

and Morgan, P.A. and Trimble & Associates, Ltd. Trimble & Associates, Ltd. provided

2 4605755vl

strategic advice and counsel and assisted with the preparation of briefs and representation

of Plaintiffs in proceedings before the Special Redistricting Panel. Briggs and Morgan,

P.A. was primarily responsible for drafting briefs, preparing presentations, and

representing Plaintiffs in proceedings before the Special Redistricting Panel.

7. During this litigation, attorneys from Trimble and Associates, Ltd., and

Briggs and Morgan, P.A. engaged in the following activities while representing Plaintiffs:

(i) legal and demographic research; (ii) consulting with and advising clients; (iii)

consulting with demographic consultants; (iv) analyzing existing and proposed

redistricting plans; (v) drafting and revising briefs, pleadings, and presentations; (vi)

analyzing the pleadings, briefs, arguments, and proposed redistricting plans of other

parties involved in the litigation; and (vii) preparing for and presenting oral arguments

and Powerpoint presentations to the Special Redistricting Panel.

8. I am familiar with the prevailing hourly rates charged by lawyers in

Minneapolis and St. Paul. I have reviewed the Affidavit of Eric J. Magnuson submitted

in support of the Plaintiffs' application for attorneys' fees. The billing rate information in

that affidavit is consistent with my understanding of prevailing hourly rates for lawyers in

the Minneapolis and St. Paul area.

9. The hourly rates charged by Plaintiffs' attorneys in this case are consistent

with reasonable and customary rates charged in the Minneapolis and St. Paul legal

community. The rates charged are equivalent to or less than the median prevailing rates

identified in the 2011 billing survey from Price Waterhouse Cooper discussed in the

Affidavit of Eric J. Magnuson.

3 4605755vl

10. The attorneys' fees incurred by Plaintiffs in this litigation exceed the

$225,000 in attorneys' fees requested by Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

I believe that $225,000 represents a reasonable award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiffs for

their efforts in this litigation. In stating this opinion, I have considered the experience of

the attorneys involved, the responsibility they assumed, the difficulty of the issues

presented, the amount of time spent in prosecuting the litigation, the customary and usual

fees in the community, the matter in dispute, and the results obtained. The work was

actually performed for the Plaintiffs' benefit and was necessary for their proper

representation. No charges for any unnecessary or duplicative work or work unrelated to

this matter have been submitted in support of this motion.

11. Trimble & Associates, Ltd. advanced $5,861.91 in costs to Plaintiffs during

this litigation. These costs were incurred for the following:

ITEM COSTS Photocopies $4,649.75 Telephone $41.75 Postage $23.80 Courier $113.00 Binders $165.50 Mileage/Parking $539.10

TOTAL $5,532.90

12. The total costs advanced to Plaintiffs during this litigation by both Briggs

and Morgan, P.A., and Trimble and Associates, Ltd. is $20,985.66.

13. I have reviewed the costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this litigation. Each of

the costs were actually incurred by Plaintiffs and were necessary for their proper

4 4605755vl

representation. No charges for unnecessary or duplicative costs or costs unrelated to this

matter have been submitted in support of this motion.

Dated: April 15 , 2012.

Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 2r day of April, 2012.

~~$n-/ Notary Public

4605755vl 5

Iii?. -;;;:M{..0: Tony P. Tnmble

TERESALYN JOHNSON NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA : My Commission Expires Jan. 31, 2015

STATE OF MINNESOTA


All-152


Plaintiffs, and


Intervenors, and


Intervenors, vs.


Defendants.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )

Jill N. Yeaman, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 11th day of May, 2012, she caused to be filed with the Court via email and messenger the following documents:

1) Hippert Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees;

2) Affidavit of Eric J. Magnuson;

3) Affidavit of Tony P. Trimble;

4) Affidavit of Service;

and served true and correct copies of the same upon the following parties by electronic mail and U.S. Mail with postage prepaid, by placing copies in envelopes addressed as shown below, which addresses are, respectively, the last known addresses for said parties, to-wit:

Alan I. Gilbert, Kristyn M. Anderson, Jason Pleggenkuhle Minnesota Attorney General's Office 445 Minnesota St., Suite 1100 St. Paul, MN 55101-2128 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; j [email protected]. us;

David L. Lillehaug, Christopher A. Stafford Fredrikson & Byron, P A 200 S. 6th St., Suite 4000 Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Marc Elias, Kevin J. Hamilton, William Stafford Perkins Coie LLP 700 13th St. NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005-3960 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

2

Thomas N. Kelly, Greg T. Kryzer Wright County Attorney's Office Wright County Government Center 10 2nd Street N.W., Room 400 Buffalo, MN 55313 Email: [email protected]; [email protected];

Tony P. Trimble, Matthew W. Haapoja, Mark W. Fosterling Trimble & Associates, Ltd. 10201 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 130 Minneapolis, MN 55305 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Alan W. Weinblatt, JaneL. Prince, Jay Benanav Weinblatt & Gaylord PLC Suite 300, Kellogg Square 111 East Kellogg Boulevard St. Paul, MN 55101 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Dated: May 11, 2012.

Notary Public

4643856vl

3

Documents

STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL REDISTRICTING PANEL/media/PDFs/Presentation/Hippert Plaintiffs... · STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL REDISTRICTING PANEL All-152 ... Support if Zachman Plaintiffs