Case Was Deemed Complex, With Plaintiff’s Attorneys Displaying Dexterity Along The Way.
In Gonzales v. City of San Jose, Case No. 5:13-cv-00695-BLF (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2016, Doc. 244), U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman awarded plaintiff recovering $10,000 in an eve-of-trial settlement of a complex civil rights case—where a mother was arrested after son’s involvement in a gang-related murder based on mistaken identity, with a host of police officers involved in the arrest—a total of $724,295 in attorney’s fees under the federal civil rights fee-shifting statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
The facts are somewhat gross in nature, which we will not repeat, but certainly weighed in the district judge’s determination and assessment of the complexity of the case. The result was also dictated by the fact that the City finally accepted a second FRCP, rule 68 offer of judgment for $10,000, but one which conceded that plaintiff was entitled to fees as the prevailing party. (At an earlier juncture of the case, plaintiff rejected an initial rule 68 offer which still involved $70,000 in attorney’s fees, with plaintiff improving their position by rejecting the initial offer.)
The district judge held the City to its settlement agreement position that plaintiff was to be deemed a prevailing party, which was also shown by the excellent results obtained by her anyway in a case that was on the edge of trial.
The hourly rates were Bay Area rates in the San Jose forum. The district judge recounted numerous decisions awarding rates in the $350-750 range for associates/very experienced partners or attorneys. The main challenge was to the $575 hourly rates requested by a ten year experienced attorney, but one who assumed leading management for the firm representing the plaintiff and who played a central role in the litigation. However, the district judge found that this attorney’s skill and results obtained justified this rate for a ten year attorney.
District Judge Freeman did discount hours for battery claims unrelated to the successful claims, adopting the reductions in hours itemized by plaintiff at the court’s request.
The district judge also granted a modest 1.1 multiplier in the case.
BLOG OBSERVATIONS—Steven M. Berki of San Jose was the lead attorney obtaining this result, so kudos to Mr. Berki. There are some takeaways from this case: (1) if you want higher hourly rates, stress your importance to the case and results obtained; and (2) if the district judge requests apportionment out of work on unsuccessful or unrelated claims, provide the hours which should be allocated out rather than making the court became the “auditor” on such an issue.
Comments