Fresh Vision OP, Inc. v. Skoglund

District Court, D. Kansas·Decided May 22, 2025·No. 5:24-cv-04055·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

FRESH VISION OP, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs, Case No. 24-4055-DDC-TJJ

v.

MARK SKOGLUND, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 45). Plaintiffs ask the court to award reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2), and D. Kan. Rule 54.2, as the prevailing parties in this civil rights action. Doc. 45 at 1. After plaintiffs filed an appeal, the court twice granted plaintiffs extensions of time to file their memorandum in support of this motion. Doc. 50; Doc. 56. Legislative action later mooted the appeal, so plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed it. Doc. 57. The parties then consulted one another the attorney fees motion, complying with D. Kan. Rule 54.2(b). Those negotiations were successful, and jointly they now ask the court to enter this Order under that same local rule. The court already has determined that plaintiffs are prevailing parties entitled to an award of attorney fees. Doc. 43 at 30. Plaintiffs secured a temporary restraining order against defendants, which the court later converted into a permanent injunction, barring “defendants from designating Fresh Vision as a political committee based on a finding that express advocacy is a major purpose—but not the major purpose—of its organization under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 25- 4143(l)(1).” Id. at 31. The court entered a corresponding judgment the same day. Doc. 44. Now, the parties have represented to the court that they have reached an agreement on the amount of the award. The parties have determined that a fee of $98,500.00 is reasonable and appropriate under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The parties deem the amount of the fee award consistent with the quality of the work performed, the skill of counsel, and the results achieved. The parties communicated this agreement to the court and agreed on a proposed order emailed to chambers.

The court construes the proposed order—which specifies the award amount—as a stipulation and request for an order under D. Kan. Rule 54.2(b). The court enters this Order based on that represented agreement.1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 45) is granted. Defendants shall pay to plaintiffs attorney fees and costs in the agreed upon amount of $98,500.00. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 22nd day of May, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas. s/ Daniel D. Crabtree______ Daniel D. Crabtree United States District Judge

1 The parties also proposed that the court order as follows: “Said payment shall be made as soon as administratively practicable following the entry of this Order, payable to the Institute for Free Speech (1150 Connecticut Ave., N. W., Suite 801, Washington DC 20036) which shall share the payment with Kriegshauser Ney Law Group as local counsel.” But the Supreme Court has made it clear that “Section 1988 makes the prevailing party eligible for a discretionary award of attorney’s fees.” Venegas v. Mitchell, 495 U.S. 82, 87 (1990) (emphasis in original). That is, “it is the party, rather than the lawyer, who is so eligible[.]” Id. And so, the court extracted the payable-to portion of the proposed order. AGREED:

/s/ Charles Miller /s/ Bradley J. Schlozman Charles Miller (pro hac vice) Bradley J. Schlozman (KS Bar #17621) INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW 1617 North Waterfront Parkway Suite 801 Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Wichita, Kansas 67206 Tel: (202) 301-9800 Tel.: (316) 267-2000 Fax: (202) 301-3399 Fax: (316) 630-8466 cmiller@ifs.org bschlozman@hinklaw.com /s/ Ryan Kriegshauser Garrett R. Roe (KS Bar #26867) Ryan A. Kriegshauser (KS Bar #23942) HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC Joshua A. Ney (KS Bar #24077) 8711 Penrose Lane, Suite 400 KRIEGSHAUSER NEY LAW GROUP Lenexa, Kansas 66219 15050 W. 138th St., Unit 4493 Tel.: (913) 345-9205 Olathe, KS 66063 Fax: (913) 345-4832 Tel: 913.303.0639 groe@hinklaw.com Fax: 785.670.8446 ryan@knlawgroup.com Jay Rodriguez josh@knlawgroup.com Assistant Attorney General Kansas Attorney General’s Office Counsel for Plaintiffs 120 SW 10th Avenue, 2nd Floor Topeka KS 66612 Tel: (785) 368-8197 jay.rodriguez@ag.ks.gov

Counsel for Defendants

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fresh Vision OP, Inc. v. Skoglund, (D. Kan. 2025).

Fresh Vision OP, Inc. v. Skoglund (Fresh Vision OP, Inc. v. Skoglund) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Venegas v. Mitchell
495 U.S. 82 (Supreme Court, 1990)