United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency

Opinion by Judge HURWITZ; Concurrence by Judge REINHARDT.

OPINION

Robert Moser prevailed against the federal government in a civil asset forfeiture action and became entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2465 (b)(1)(A). The district court’s fee award was significantly less than Moser requested, and he now appeals. Because the district court committed several errors in considering the unopposed fee request, we vacate and remand for recalculation of the award.

I.

During a search of Moser’s house for marijuana cultivation, federal agents seized $28,000 in currency. The United States later instituted proceedings to forfeit the money. Moser retained Richard Barnett, an experienced forfeiture specialist, to oppose the government’s claim and *1104 assert Moser’s ownership . of the funds. The. fee agreement provided that Barnett would be paid the greater of one third of recovery or any statutory fee award.

Asserting that government agents interrogated Moser without a Miranda 1 warning and conducted warrantless searches of his home, Barnett filed a motion to suppress all evidence relating to the seized…

concurring:

I concur in the opinion, but write separately to emphasize that under our holding the district court’s role in reviewing unopposed fee requests is a modest one. We conclude that the district court cannot “do the target’s homework” and must presume that a fee request supported by sufficient evidence is reasonable, but we do not discuss in detail when this presumption would be rebutted. To understand the appropriate bounds for the district court’s review, we must examine the purpose of investing the court with that authority in the first place. When the fee-target implicitly agrees that the applicant’s evidence establishes that his fees were reasonable by not contesting the issue, the district court should act not to save the target from itself, but only to protect the integrity of the courts. See Hall v. City of Los Angeles, 697 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir.2012) (In a case in which a party might otherwise have forfeited an argument, a court may still intervene to “safeguard the fairness, integrity and reputation of our courts.”); Colson v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 59 F.R.D. 324, 328 (N.D.Ill.1972) (“In ruling on attorney’s fees the Court ought to consider ... the effect of…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-55266 Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. ROBERT JOSEPH MOSER, 3:10-cv-02378- Claimant-Appellant, LAB-KSC

v.

OPINION

$28,000.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 2, 2015—Pasadena, California

Filed October 6, 2015

Before: Stephen Reinhardt, N. Randy Smith, and Andrew D. Hurwitz, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Hurwitz; Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt SUMMARY*

Attorney’s Fees / Civil Forfeiture

The panel vacated the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”) to a claimant who prevailed against the federal government in a civil asset forfeiture action, and remanded for recalculation of the award. The lodestar method, which calculates an attorney’s fee award by multiplying the market billing rate by the hours reasonably expended, applies to CAFRA awards even when there is a contingency agreement.…