Jimmy Yamada v. William Snipes

MEMORANDUM

Jimmy Yamada and Russell Stewart appeal the district court’s order awarding them attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . For the reasons stated here and in a concurrently filed opinion, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

1. The district court did not abuse its substantial discretion by adopting a 50 percent reduction to the “general tasks” entries in the plaintiffs’ billing records, by reducing the award for travel time related to the preliminary injunction hearing or by failing to explain its chosen reductions. The district court found that although “the subject of campaign finance law is complicated,” and that “this case presented difficult issues,” the only issue on which plaintiffs prevailed “was certainly not complicated.” It thus “made clear that it [had] considered the relationship between the amount of the fee awarded and the results obtained,” taking into account the plaintiffs’ (particularly A-l’s) limited success in the action. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436-37 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). See also Fox v. Vice, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 2216 , 180 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011) (“The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party)…