Josefina Cabrales v. County of Los Angeles

981 F.2d 1257 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Josefina CABRALES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendant-Appellee. No. 91-56155. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 1992. Decided Dec. 16, 1992. As Amended Jan. 25, 1993. Before HUG, FLETCHER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Josefina Cabrales appeals the district court's denial of her request for enhancement of attorneys' fees awarded to her pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 . We affirm. 3 * The Supreme Court recently held in City of Burlington v. Dague, 112 S.Ct. 2638 (1992), that the typical federal fee-shifting statutes, including 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , do not allow for upward adjustments to a lodestar fee on the basis that the prevailing party's counsel incurred the risk of nonpayment. The district court thus properly denied Cabrales' request for a fee enhancement. II 4 Appellee County of Los Angeles requests attorneys' fees…