United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division
TAB-N-ACTION, INC. D/B/A EXCELLENCE ACADEMY
MONROE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
G. JAMES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a Motion and Order for Attorneys'
Fees and Costs (“Motion for Fees and Costs”)
[Doc. No. 27] filed by Plaintiff Tab-in-Action, Inc. d/b/a
Excellence Academy (“Excellence Academy”).
Excellence Academy moves the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and the cost
of its filing fee. The Monroe City School Board
(“MCSB”) opposes the motion. [Doc. No. 30].
following the reasons, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
April 25, 2017, Excellence Academy filed a verified Complaint
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the MCSB.
[Doc. No. 1]. Excellence Academy moved the Court for a
preliminary injunction “prohibiting [MCSB] from
revoking [Excellence Academy's] charter without
compliance with La. Admin. Code[, Title] 28[, Part] CXXXIX
[§] 1703” and a declaratory judgment that
Excellence Academy “has complied with its obligations
under the charter contract with the [MCSB] and the
requirements of Louisiana statutes and regulations.”
[Doc. No. 1, ¶¶ 24 &. 28].
17, 2017, Excellence Academy filed a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order (“Motion for TRO”) [Doc. No. 6]
contending that MCSB should be prohibited “from
executing its plan or taking any action to close Excellence
Academy before there has been notice and an opportunity for
hearing on [MCSB's] decision to discontinue funding
Excellence Academy in violation of the contract . . . and the
constitutional requirement of due process . . . .”
filed a memorandum in opposition to Excellence Academy's
Motion for TRO and motion for preliminary injunction. [Doc.
No. 12]. Excellence Academy filed a supplemental memorandum.
[Doc. No. 10].
23, 2017, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing, hearing
testimony from the parties' witnesses, receiving
evidence, and hearing oral argument from counsel.
consideration of the entire record, on May 24, 2017, the
Court issued a Ruling and Order [Doc. Nos. 17 & 18]
granting Excellence Academy's request for preliminary
injunctive relief in part and denying the request in part.
The Court found that Excellence Academy met its showing for
the issuance of a preliminary injunction, granted the motion
for preliminary injunction and enjoined MCSB from taking
further action to close or discontinue funding Excellence
Academy for a fifth year until a hearing is held. The Court
ordered a hearing to be held no later than June 7, 2017, and
Excellence Academy to be permitted to present evidence and
witnesses to support its contention that it has complied with
the requirements of the applicable statutory, administrative
code, and charter agreement provisions. However, to the
extent that Excellence Academy asserted in the Complaint that
it was entitled to the procedures set forth in 28 La. Admin.
Code, Pt. CXXXIX, § 1703, the motion was denied. The
Court also denied the Motion for TRO as moot.
the issuance of the Ruling, the Court granted motions by both
parties on discovery and subpoena issues. [Doc. Nos. 20 &
22]. However, after a status conference with counsel, on June
2, 2017, the Court granted motions to reconsider filed by
both parties and quashed all subpoenas. Given its resolution
of the only federal issue, the Court also gave the parties
notice of its intent to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law issues and to dismiss the
case without prejudice.
7, 2017, Excellence Academy filed the instant motion, seeking
to recover $28, 845.00 in attorneys' fees and the $400
filing fee. The MCSB opposed the motion, arguing that
Excellence Academy is not a prevailing party and, in the
alternative, that it seeks to recover fees for claims and
issues that were not resolved in its favor and that any award
should be paid by the State, not MCSB, because it acted in
compliance with state laws and procedures. No reply
memorandum was filed.
13, 2017, the Court dismissed the remaining claims without
prejudice, but retained ...