Lillian Corder, Roberta Lombardo v. Brad Gates, Sheriff, and Roy Brown, Lillian Corder Roberta Lombardo v. Brad Gates, Sheriff Roy Brown

947 F.2d 374 21 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1284 Lillian CORDER, Roberta Lombardo, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Brad GATES, Sheriff, Defendant, and Roy Brown, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Lillian CORDER; Roberta Lombardo, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Brad GATES, Sheriff; Roy Brown, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 88-5555, 88-5588. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 4, 1991. Decided Oct. 16, 1991. Timothy T. Coates, Los Angeles, California, for defendants-appellants-appellees. Stephen Yagman, Yagman & Yagman, Venice, California, for plaintiffs-appellees-appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before PREGERSON, HALL and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judge: 1 Defendant Roy Brown appeals the district court's award of attorney's fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , arguing, inter alia, that the amount of attorney's fees awarded should be reduced further. Plaintiffs cross-appeal arguing that the district court improperly reduced the amount of attorney's fees owed to them. 2 * Lillian Corder and Roberta Lombardo brought suit on…

Defendant Roy Brown appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , arguing, inter alia, that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded should be reduced further. Plaintiffs cross-appeal arguing that the district court improperly reduced the amount of attorney’s fees owed to them.

I

Lillian Corder and Roberta Lombardo brought suit on the basis of the civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Plaintiffs alleged that defendants illegally detained them and conducted an illegal search of their residence in a misguided attempt to find an escaped prisoner. Specifically, plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that on January 18, 1985 they resided together at 4630 Live Oaks in Cudahy, California and at approximately 3:00 a.m. defendants stormed plaintiffs’ residence, ordered them from their home, and detained them for approximately five hours without pressing legal charges. Plaintiffs further claimed that defendants “absent any warrant ... shot out the windows of the home, entered the home, shot chemical gas into the home, [and] shot out the ceiling of the home.... ”

Plaintiffs named as defendants the…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree that the district court abused its discretion when it reduced the plaintiffs’ award of attorney’s fees. I do not agree, however, that it is ever permissible to re *384 duce an award simply because the plaintiffs failed to prevail against some proportion of the defendants originally named in the suit. I would hold in part III.B. that the plaintiffs are entitled to the lodestar amount in this case.

The district court said that it reduced the attorney’s fee award by 20% to adjust for the plaintiffs’ “limited success.” The plaintiffs argue that the district court abused its discretion by reducing the award. Defendant Brown appeals, arguing that the plaintiffs’ purportedly limited success merited an even greater reduction in the fee award. I do not believe that the plaintiffs’ success was limited. Therefore, I would clearly reject defendant Brown's appeal with regard to the issue of limited success. In addition, I would not, as the majority does in part III.B. of the opinion, invite the district court to exercise its discretion a second time. The parties agree that the district court properly calculated the lodestar figure, which is…