Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma, Inc et al v. Feiock et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
METROPOLITAL FAIR HOUSING 	)
COUNCIL OF OKLAHOMA, INC., 	)
JAMES MCNAMEE, and MARTA 	)
MCNAMEE, 	)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-23-115-GLJ
)
FRANK FEIOCK AND GLENNA 	)
FEIOCK, both d/b/a Rockford Garden 	)
Apartments, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Court Order. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Court Order
[Docket No. 99] is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiffs Metropolitan Fair Housing Council of Oklahoma, Inc. (“MFHCO”),
James McNamee, and Marta McNamee sued Defendants Frank and Glenna Feiock, doing
business as Rockford Garden Apartments, alleging claims under the Federal Fair Housing
Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 and Oklahoma’s Fair Housing Law, 25 Okla. Stat. § 1451
et seq., as well as an Oklahoma state-law negligence claim. See Docket No. 2. Plaintiffs’
Complaint allegations focused on the landlord/tenant relationship between Plaintiffs James
and Marta McNamee and Defendants Frank and Glenna Feiock.
6:23-cv-00115-GLJ Document 101 Filed in ED/OK on 03/10/26 Page 1 of 4

2
On April 8, 2024, Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment was granted
and the failure to accommodate claims were dismissed. See Docket No. 52. On August 7,
2024, the Court granted Defendants’ second summary judgement motion as to all
remaining claims and entered Judgment for Defendants and against Plaintiffs. See Docket
Nos. 82 & 83.
On November 4, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’
Motion for the Recovery of Legal Fees and Brief in Support and entered an order in favor
of Defendants for their attorney’s fees in the amount of $6,055.50. 	See Docket No. 85.
Subsequently, on May 2, 2025, the Court Clerk entered an Order Taxing Costs in favor of
Defendants in the amount of $2,151.65. See Docket No. 98. Defendants now seek an order
directing Plaintiffs to pay by a date certain the award of fees and costs as well as accrued
post-judgement interest. See Docket No. 99.
Analysis
Defendants assert that due to various funding issues incurred by MFHCO they have
withheld efforts to collect the attorney’s fee and costs award they obtained in this case. See
Docket No. 90. Defendants further assert, however, that Plaintiffs have ceased discussion
regarding payment of these sums and they now seek an order directing them to pay the
moneys owed by a date certain. Id.
Plaintiffs do not dispute that they owe Defendants the awarded attorney’s fees and
costs. Instead, Plaintiffs note that Plaintiffs James and Marta McNamee’s representation
agreement provides that they are to be represented in this action at no cost to them and,
therefore, it is the understanding of Plaintiffs that the fees and costs are to be paid by
6:23-cv-00115-GLJ Document 101 Filed in ED/OK on 03/10/26 Page 2 of 4

3
MFHCO. 	See Docket No. 100. 	MFHCO further states that it is attempting to identify
alternative sources of funding to pay the award and continues to attempt to work out
payment arrangements with Defendants. Id.
First, the Order awarding attorney’s fees and the Order Taxing Costs does not
delineate between the various Plaintiffs but is joint as to all Plaintiffs. 	Thus, any
responsibility among them for paying the fees and costs awards is a matter left to the
Plaintiffs and any agreement they may have regarding such matters.
Second, as it relates to the awards for attorney’s fees and costs, it is undisputed that
such awards were entered and the sums owed have not been paid. 	Moreover, although
Defendants seek post-judgment interest, they do not cite any authority for such interest or
the source of the rates used in their calculation. Post-judgment interest is a matter of federal
law. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 1961; Everaard v. Hartford Acc. & Indemn. Co., 842 F.2d 1186,
1193 (10th Cir. 1988). The applicable statute provides that “[i]nterest shall be allowed on
any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
The Court therefore grants Defendants’ request for post-judgment interest at the applicable
rates from the dates of the entry of the Order for attorney’s fees and the cost award, at a
rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding.
Id. In this case, the Order for attorney’s fees was entered on November 4, 2024 and the
published interest rate for judgments entered on that date was 4.29%, and the Order Taxing
Costs was entered on May 2, 2025 and the published interest rate for judgments entered on
that date was 3.97%. See http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/Current.
6:23-cv-00115-GLJ Document 101 Filed in ED/OK on 03/10/26 Page 3 of 4

4
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Enforce Court Order [Docket No. 99] is
GRANTED and Plaintiffs are ordered to pay the sum of $6,055.50 in attorney’s fees and
the sum of $2,151.65 in costs, plus accrued post-judgment interest at the applicable rates,
not later than 45 days after entry of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of March, 2026.
_____________________________________
GERALD L. JACKSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:23-cv-00115-GLJ Document 101 Filed in ED/OK on 03/10/26 Page 4 of 4