CLS fee schedule). The United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit has noted that the CLS fee schedule is “a fair reflection of the prevailing market rates in Philadelphia.” See Maldonado, 256 F.3d at 187-88 (approving of CLS fee schedule). Additionally, Plaintiff submitted three declarations from attorneys with personal knowledge of the current market rates for attorneys in Philadelphia’s employment law arena that attested to the reasonableness of Mr. Surkin’s requested rate. (Pl. Fee Pet., Ex. 2, 3, and 4.) Defendant, however, submitted no contrary evidence, declarations or affidavits regarding the reasonableness of Mr. Surkin’s rate. See Gentner v. Cheney Univ. of Pa., Civ. A. No. 94-7443, 1999 WL 993999, *5, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16796, at *14-15 (E.D.Pa. Nov.l, 1999) (<HOLDING>) (citing Ballen v. Martin Chevrolet-Buick, Civ.
holding in an age discrimination case that even though a plaintiff need not revisit his prima facie case after a trial on the merits he still must show that he has met his ultimate burden of proving that the employer terminated him because of age emphasis added holding petitioner has the burden of proof under the strickland test holding that requested rate should not be adjusted downward when  the plaintiff has met his prima facie burden under the community market rate lodestar test and the opposing party has not produced contradictory evidence  holding that when the lower court has clearly evidenced its intent and the opposing party has not objected to the absence of a separate judgment the requirements of rule 58 are waived holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence