Case Has Interesting Discussions of Civil Rights Lodestar, Multipliers, Hourly Rate Review, and Pro Hac Vice Delayed Admission Principles.
Presiding Justice O’Leary authored Nachtrieb v. County of Orange, Case No. G060294 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 11, 2023) (unpublished), which is a must read for civil rights litigators when it comes to supporting and opposing fee applications under a pro-plaintiff civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1988) after a civil rights plaintiff prevailed against Orange County and two individual defendants to the tune of $1,278,800 in damages.
What happened next was that plaintiff moved to recoup fees of $4.5 million, but plaintiff also requested an enhancement of the award to $9.9 million. The defense argued in opposition that no more than $2.2 million in fees were justified. The lower court awarded fees of $4,053,479 (lauding the success and performance of plaintiff’s attorneys although making reductions), prompting an appeal by the defense and a cross-appeal by plaintiff.
By and large, the fee award was affirmed, although it was remanded to revisit the hourly rates charged by three of the claiming attorneys.
Lodestar and multiplier principles do apply in § 1988 cases, with most of the appellate issues reviewed in this case under an abuse of discretion standard. Even though plaintiff was unsuccessful against certain other defendants, this by itself does not require a reduction under § 1988. Plaintiff competently supported the fee application, such that the burden of rebuttal fell on the defense, which had to explain excessive, redundant, and unreasonable charges—plaintiff did not have to negate these factors. The remand occurred because, for three attorneys, the lower court awarded higher rates than those advocated by plaintiff’s fee expert under the Laffey Matrix such that this paradox needed to be resolved.
Plaintiff’s cross-appeal arguments were rejected. There was nothing erroneous about the lower court rejecting a multiplier given a conclusion that the lodestar adequately compensated plaintiff’s attorneys for their work effort. The lower court correctly excluded 489 hours expended by out-of-state attorneys before they were admitted pro hac vice, given that California does not allow for such compensation. (Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc., 218 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1255 (2015).) It further found that the Golba rule was not preempted by other federal civil rights principles because it did not obstruct the purposes of section 1988 but merely required attorney permissive admission as a condition to compensation for work.
The appellate court did award appellate costs to the defense, but it clarified that it has no bearing on entitlement to further section 1988 attorney’s fees by plaintiff.
Comments