Jack W. Friend v. Ronald Kolodzieczak

72 F.3d 1386 Jack W. FRIEND, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Ronald KOLODZIECZAK, et al., Defendants-Appellants. No. 93-16918. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted * May 22, 1995. Decided Sept. 19, 1995. As Amended on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Dec. 21, 1995. Richard L. Reynolds, Bennett, Samuelsen, Reynolds & Allard, Oakland, California, for the defendants-appellants. Amitai Schwartz, San Francisco, California, for the plaintiffs-appellees. AMENDED ORDER, DISSENT, AND DENIAL OF REHEARING Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before: PREGERSON, FERGUSON, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges. 1 Dissent by Judge FERGUSON. ORDER AMENDING ORDER 2 The Order, Appendix and Dissent filed September 19, 1995 is amended as follows: 3 With the above amendments, Judges Pregerson and O'Scannlain have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Judge Ferguson votes to grant the petition for rehearing and recommends granting of rehearing en banc. 4 The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote…

Dissent by

ORDER AMENDING ORDER

The Order, Appendix and Dissent filed September 19, 1995 is amended as follows:

With the above amendments, Judges Pre-gerson and O’Scannlain have voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for rehearing en bane. Judge Ferguson votes to grant the petition for rehearing and recommends granting of rehearing en banc.

*1388 The full court has been advised of the suggestion for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R.App.P. 35(b).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

ORDER

We affirm the district court’s order on remand for the reasons stated in the district court’s Memorandum and Order Re Attorney’s Fees and Costs (On Remand), filed September 14,1993, attached as Appendix A.

In affirming the district court’s order on remand, we adopt its discussion and conclusion that plaintiffs are prevailing parties. A prevailing party analysis is a prerequisite for determining the reasonableness of an attorney’s fee award; thus, our remand order assumed that the district court would conduct this analysis,…

AMENDED ORDER, DISSENT, AND DENIAL OF REHEARING

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.