Chris Taylor v. John Chiang

MEMORANDUM

The district court’s award of attorneys’ fees is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055, 1059 (9th Cir.2006). Under that standard, “this court cannot reverse unless it has a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment.” United States v. Tucor Int’l, Inc., 238 F.3d 1171 , 1175 (9th Cir.2001). We review de novo legal determinations made in the attorneys’ fees decision. Associated Gen. Contractors v. Smith, 74 F.3d 926 , 931 (9th Cir.1996).

Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815 (9th Cir.2009), controls regarding the Culhane fees. Factually, Culhane’s participation is not distinguishable, except that Culhane was a member of Plaintiffs’ attorney’s firm, which strengthens the claim. See id. at 822 . The local rules for the Central District of California are materially similar to those in the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, Winterrowd cannot be distinguished on that ground.

The reduction in Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ requested hourly rates to $335 was not an abuse of discretion. We have instructed that “rates should be established by reference to the fees…