Reductions Made for Excessive Hourly Rates, Reconstructed Time Records, and Vague Time Entries.
In Lehr v. City of Sacramento, Case No. 2:07-cv-01565-MCE-GGH (E.D.Cal. Mar. 22, 2013 Memorandum and Order Partially Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Fees/Costs), Chief U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the Eastern District of California ruled on a $1,805,000 request by winning attorneys for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after they won a jury verdict against the City for vindicating homeless people’s rights when personal property was confiscated in “anti-camping” ordinance enforcement activities. The jury verdict ultimately resulted in the distribution of $796,050 to be paid to 1,143 claimants. Although finding that Plaintiffs were successful, District Judge England awarded $745,778 in fees, plus $37,301.58 in costs. The reasoning behind the fee reductions went like this: (1) for top civil rights litigators in the Sacramento area, $400 was a reasonable hourly rate, not the $550 requested rate; (2) 10% reduction for failure to keep contemporaneous time records; and (3) 20% reduction with respect to disputed vague time entries.
OUR FAVORITE QUOTE–”Although district judges ‘need not, and should not, become green-eyeshade accountants,’ Fox v. Vice, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 2216 (2011), the court should provide some indication of how it arrived at its conclusions (also quoting Padgett v. Loventhan, 2013 WL 491024, at *2 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2003) [district courts “must show their work when calculating attorney’s fees”].”
HAT TIP–We thank Carter C. “Cappy” White, supervising attorney of UC Davis School of Law’s Civil Rights Clinic, for calling this case to our attention.
Carter C. White
