On Remand, Basis For Any “Redone” Fee Award Had To Be Clarified With Greater Specificity.
In another Ninth Circuit decision of “show me your math,” a 3-0 panel reversed a district judge’s fee award of $14,268.20 in a Longshore Act case—a 37% reduction from the requested $22,585—because the reasons for such a reduction were not specific enough.
Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, Case No. 12-16846 (9th Cir. Mar. 10, 2014) (published; amended opinion) was a situation where the district court made the 37% reduction after (1) selecting to award a blended lower hourly rate of $400, and (2) reducing compensable hours by almost half. The district judge based this upon two factors: (1) the disproportionality of requested fees ($22,585) and the amount at stake in the litigation ($3,220.20); although (2) Plaintiff was not charged with any responsibility for the matter becoming more protracted than usual (which could have been a further negative downward adjustment).
The Ninth Circuit held more specificity was required for a 37% reduction, just as it held was required when the fee request was reduced by 20-25% in Costa v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec. Adm., 690 F.3d 1132, 1134, 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) [discussed in our Aug. 25, 2012 post].) It also did not like the blended rate analysis, given that an associate with a lower rate and paralegals with lower rates were involved. Although indicating the district judge may have had good reasons for the reduction, “it must explain why,” citing Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1113 (9th Cir. 2008) [discussed in our Aug. 2, 2008 post].)