Beta Upsilon Chi Upsilon Chapter at the University of Florida, et al v. J. Bernard Machen, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14554
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:07-cv-00135-MW-GRJ
BETA UPSILON CHI UPSILON CHAPTER AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF FL, A student organization at the
University of Florida on behalf of itself and its individual
members, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
J. BERNARD MACHEN, In his official capacity
as President of The University of Florida, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
________________________
(April 30, 2015)
Case: 14-14554 Date Filed: 04/30/2015 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
We can assume arguendo that, pursuant to the mandate of the prior appeal in
this case, the only appropriate award of attorney’s fees would reflect that work
which “was reasonably related to, and reasonably contributed to, the success
achieved – i.e., the grant of the injunction pending appeal.” Although it is possible
that the district court awarded some additional fees, that is not clear to us.
Assuming arguendo that there may have been some error in that regard, Appellants
have failed in their initial brief on appeal to identify specific portions of the fee
award which would thus constitute error. Broad categories identified by
Appellants - e.g., discovery - are not sufficient identification, because Appellants
fail to explain how or why such categories, or any particular parts thereof, were
unrelated to and did not contribute to the success achieved. Similarly, with respect
to Appellants’ challenge to fees for work performed after the injunction pending
appeal was granted, Appellees would be entitled to fees for work reasonably
related to sustaining the injunction which had been obtained. In addition,
Appellees would be entitled to fees for work entailed in reasonably calculating,
seeking, and defending an award of attorney’s fees. Appellants’ brief on appeal
does not identify any portion of the fee award unrelated to such work. Nor does
Case: 14-14554 Date Filed: 04/30/2015 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Appellants’ brief explain why the fees the district court awarded for the Appellee’s
work was unreasonable.
We cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion with respect
to the hourly rates. We reject Appellants’ argument that Appellees abandoned
their claim for $1283.00 in non-taxable district court costs.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Case: 14-14554 Date Filed: 04/30/2015 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --