Hayes v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee et al., The

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JENAI HAYES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 3:20-cv-1023
) Judge Trauger
THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF ) Lead Case
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, )
TENNESSEE, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________
DR. LILY MORENO LEFFLER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 3:21-cv-00038
) Judge Trauger
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF ) Member Case
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, )
TENNESSEE, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________________
DR. JAMES BAILEY, ET AL., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil No. 3:21-cv-00122
) Judge Trauger
THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF ) Member Case
NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, )
TENNESSEE, ET AL., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs’ counsel have filed a Motion for Disbursement of Funds (Doc. No. 348), to which
1
Case 3:20-cv-01023 Document 353 Filed 12/09/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

former plaintiffs’ counsel, Brian C. Winfrey, has filed a Response (Doc. No. 351), and plaintiffs’
counsel have filed a Reply (Doc. No. 352).
Mr. Winfrey was hired some six weeks before this case was to be tried and claims that the
original plaintiffs’ counsel, who had worked on this case for some five years, agreed to give him one-
third of their one-third contingency fee. Mr. Winfrey filed a lien with this court, and the parties
agreed that the amount he claimed in fees, $748,662.43, would be deposited into the registry of the
court pending a decision on the controversy over the fee agreement.
The court held two lengthy evidentiary hearings and basically had to decide credibility issues
between a number of lawyers who regularly practice in front of this court. The court held that
original plaintiffs’ counsel had agreed to pay Mr. Winfrey $700.00 per hour for his work, not the
large contingency share that he claimed. The court’s original award was $78,400.00 (Doc. No. 342),
but the court was persuaded by a later motion filed by Winfrey to add funds for additional hours not
accounted for originally, increasing his fee award to $103,250.00. Winfrey filed a Notice of Appeal
(Doc. No. 347), but, even as of now, has not filed a motion to stay the judgment pursuant to either
Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.
In their pending motion, plaintiffs’ counsel request that the court release from the registry
of the court $645,412.43, which are the fees to which this court has ruled Mr. Winfrey is not entitled.
This would leave in the registry the $103,250.00 awarded to Mr. Winfrey, which, of course, could
be paid out to him upon his request. Winfrey’s opposition to the Motion for Disbursement of Funds
is basically a request to stay the judgment, although no motion to stay the judgment has been filed.
In order to stay a judgment, the Sixth Circuit typically looks at four factors:
2
Case 3:20-cv-01023 Document 353 Filed 12/09/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed
on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3)
whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the
proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
Tiger Lily, LLC v. United States Dept. of Housing, 992 Fed.3d 518, 522 (6th Cir. 2021). Here, in
order for Mr. Winfrey to prevail on appeal, he would have to convince the appellate court that this
court’s credibility determinations are in error. Mr. Winfrey would not be irreparably injured absent
a stay, in that the court is of the opinion that plaintiffs’ counsel would be able to satisfy any increased
award of fees that the Sixth Circuit might make. Plaintiffs’ counsel would seem to be the parties
more seriously injured, were the court to deny their motion, as they would be deprived of a sizeable
fee for the lengthy time necessitated by the appeal. And finally, the court feels that the public
interest lies with lawyers being able to promptly receive fees to which they have been ruled entitled.
For all these reasons, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Disbursement of Funds is GRANTED. An
Order for Disbursement of Funds accompanies this Memorandum and Order.
It is so ORDERED.
________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge
3
Case 3:20-cv-01023 Document 353 Filed 12/09/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>