Guillory

Guillory v. Hill

Good Law
248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 808·36 Cal. App. 5th 802
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 31, 2019G054027California4,755 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Aronson, J.

LeRoy Guillory and 11 other plaintiffs 1 appeal from the court's denial of their 42 U.S.C. section 1988 ( § 1988 ) motion for attorney fees as prevailing parties in their civil rights claim against defendant Orange County Sheriff's Department Investigator Michele Hill. Plaintiffs contend the court abused its discretion when it denied their request for attorney fees.

Section 1988 authorizes "courts to award a reasonable attorney's fee to prevailing parties in civil rights litigation." ( *811 Hensley v. Eckerhart (1983) 461 U.S. 424 , 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 ( Hensley ), italics added.) The most important factor in assessing a fee's reasonableness is "the degree of success obtained" by the prevailing party. ( Id. at p. 436, 103 S.Ct. 1933 .) " 'Where recovery of private damages is the purpose of ... civil rights litigation, a ... court, in fixing fees, is obligated to give primary consideration to the amount of damages awarded as compared to the amount sought.' [Citation.] Such a comparison promotes the court's 'central' responsibility to 'make the assessment of what is a reasonable fee under the circumstances of the case.' " ( Farrar v. Hobby (1992) 506 U.S. 103 ,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.