s/Robert A. Sedler s/ Kenneth M. Mogill ROBERT A. SEDLER P31003 Kenneth M. Mogill P17865 Wayne State University Law School MOGILL, POSNER & COHEN 471 W. Palmer Street 27 E. Flint Street, 2 Floornd Detroit, MI 48202 Lake Orion, MI 48362 (313) 577-3968 (248) 814-9470 rsedler@wayne.edu kmogill@bignet.net s/ Mary Bonauto MARY L. BONAUTO s/ Vickie Henry VICKIE HENRY Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders 30 Winter Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 426-1350 Dated: June 27, 2015 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 180 Filed 07/27/15 Pg 27 of 28 Pg ID 5523 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION APRIL DEBOER, et al., Plaintiffs, -vs- ED Mi #12-civ-10285 Hon. Bernard A. Friedman RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants. __________________________/ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE CAROLE M. STANYAR hereby certifies that a copy of Plaintiffs’ (Corrected) Motion for Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988, Brief in Support, and this Certificate of Service were served upon Assistant Attorney General Joseph E. Potchen, an ECF filer, on July 27, 2015: s/Carole M. Stanyar CAROLE M. STANYAR P34830 Attorney for Plaintiffs 221 N. Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (313) 819-3953 cstanyar@wowway.com 2:12-cv-10285-BAF-MJH Doc # 180 Filed 07/27/15 Pg 28 of 28 Pg ID 5524

In equal rights lawsuits, brought 42 U.S.C. §1981, expert fees are taxable. 42 U.S.C. §1988(c). Nevertheless, expert fees should not be award to the settling plaintiffs in this case for several reason.

Alternatively, the Court should exercise its discretion and not award Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees. Even if the Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint, nd even if the Court finds that the Plaintiffs are entitled to attorneys’ fees under federal statute, the Court should exercise its discretion under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 to deny the excessive attorneys’ fees sought by Plaintiffs because it would harm the Port Authority, the ferry passengers, and the public in general, and is not otherwise justified. First, the primary source of revenue from which the Port Authority could pay such an award is from the Passenger Fee.

at ¶ 8. Attorneys with less experience than the attorneys on this case have been awarded $350 per hour and more in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Zimm.

(See Gerhardstein Declaration, Ellen Essig Declaration, and Exhibit E to James Essex Declaration). CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request they be awarded attorney fees in the amount of $1,096,142.50, plus a 50% enhancement, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988. In addition, Plaintiffs request an enhancement of 50% of the fees awarded.

27See http://www.uscourts.gov/courts/ca10/14-5003.mp3. Case 4:04-cv-00848-TCK-TLW Document 303 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/05/15 Page 20 of 27 17 throughout,28 but their constant compilation of hour upon hour of attorneys’ time results not from protecting a district court decision on appeal, but rather, from seeking something more, something beyond the pale of recoverable attorneys’ under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiffs’ counsel, anxious to climb aboard the outbound train for fame and glory – a train that was driven by the Windsor locomotive, followed closely behind by Kitchen, Bostic and Lee – requested this Court to expeditiously rule on its pending motion for summary judgment29 and joined Defendant Smith30 in seeking and receiving an accelerated briefing schedule from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to hopefully consolidate this appeal with the one in front of it, the appeal from Utah in Kitchen v. Herbert, 755 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 2014), cert.

(See itemized costs on the final page of Exhibit 2 to Gerhardstein Declaration). CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request they be awarded attorney fees in the amount of $197,176.50 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988. Plaintiffs should be awarded their expenses in the amount of $13,752.54 for a grand total of $210,929.04.

(Conclusion and signature appear on next page.) Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 193 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 12 of 14 {NY034736;1} - 11 - Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant plaintiffs’ motion to amend their Complaint and for an award of their reasonable attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and should direct the procedure and schedule for further submissions by the parties for the purpose of determining the amount of the attorneys’ fee award. Dated: July 22, 2008 BRIDGEPORT AND PORT JEFFERSON STEAMBOAT COMPANY, D & D Wholesale Flowers Inc., and FRANK C. ZAHRADKA Plaintiffs By: s/ Martin Domb _____________________________________ Martin Domb (ct 09544) Jeremy Shure (phv 0938) AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP 335 Madison Avenue, 26th Floor New York, New York 10017 Tel. (212) 880-3800 Fax (212) 880-8965 and Jonathan Bowman (ct 08526) Stewart I. Edelstein (ct 06021) COHEN AND WOLF, P.C. 1115 Broad Street P.O. Box 1821 Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601-1821 Tel. (203) 368-0211 Fax (203) 576-8504 Case 3:03-cv-00599-CFD Document 193 Filed 07/22/2008 Page 13 of 14 {NY034736;1} - 12 - CERTIFICATE OF E-SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 22, 2008, a copy of the foregoing MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAIN

Assuming, arguendo, that there was any merit to Plaintiff’s argument that the Fee Motion was untimely under Rule 54(d)(2)(B)(i), and that the Court therefore truly had committed “clear error” in reaching the merits of the Fee Mo- 16 tion, correcting that fictitious error would require only reversing that portion of the order that levied attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

of DuPage, 375 F.3d 542, 551 (7th Cir. 2004) (“It would fly in the face of legal intuit” to conclude a delay in entering a final order would strip summary judgment victor of “prevailing party” status). Plaintiffs are prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Before addressing the reasonableness of the fees, expenses and costs sought by Plaintiffs, the Court briefly discusses two preliminary matters.