facts underlying the prior lawsuits were not sufficiently similar to the present case

and that the lawsuit against Deputy Forest, occurring seven years earlier, was too

remote in time. See Duran v. City of Maywood, 221 F.3d 1127, 1132–33 (9th Cir.

2000). Therefore, the district court’s decision to exclude the evidence was not an

abuse of discretion. See id.

3. Finally, Chang argued the district court erred in reducing her attorneys’

fee award. The district court calculated a lodestar amount of $435,825.54 and then

found an attorneys’ fee award of $350,000 was appropriate.3 See Kelly v. Wengler,

822 F.3d 1085, 1099–1100 (9th Cir. 2016). First, Chang argued the district court

erroneously reduced her fee award based on Chang’s lack of success, primarily the

3 The parties did not dispute Chang was the prevailing party in the litigation. See Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 834 (2011) (“[P]laintiffs may receive fees under [42 U.S.C.] § 1988 even if they are not victorious on every claim.”).

3 failure of her Monell claim. As discussed above, the district court did not err in

granting the County judgment as a matter of law on Chang’s Monell claim.

Additionally, the district court properly considered the $40,000 in damages

recovered, the fact that Chang’s attorneys hoped to uncover a widespread problem

of excessive force within the Sheriff’s Office, and the public benefit of the suit.

See Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1209–10 (9th Cir. 2013).

Second, Chang argued the district court erred by basing its further reduction

on factors already subsumed in the lodestar calculation. However, the district

court only analyzed the case’s lack of complexity in its calculation of the lodestar

amount, not in the section of its opinion analyzing “other factors.” Therefore, the

district court was merely summarizing all of the reductions it made to the fee

award, rather than double-counting the complexity factor. See Cunningham v.

Cnty. of L.A., 879 F.2d 481, 487 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Perdue v. Kenny A. ex

rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 553 (2010). The district court did not err in reducing the

attorneys’ fee award.

Costs are awarded to Appellees. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(2).

AFFIRMED.

4