D'Lil
D'Lil v. Good-Nite Inn La Jolla, Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Berzon, J.
MEMORANDUM *
Hollynn D’Lil appeals the amount of the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees in her settlement with Good-Nite Inn (doing business as Stratford Inn) and its operating corporation Pacifica Stratford LLC (“Stratford”) for violations of her civil rights, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the California Health and Safety Code. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.
1. Number of Hours. The district court’s determination of the number of compensable hours was not an abuse of discretion and was accompanied by “a concise but clear explanation,” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), that “g[a]ve at least some indication of how it arrived at the amount of compensable hours for which fees were awarded to allow for meaningful appellate review.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1398 (9th Cir. 1992).
£ Reasonable Hourly Rate. The district court correctly determined the reasonable hourly rate not “by reference to the rates actually charged by the prevailing party,” Schwarz v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895,…
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting.
BERZON, Circuit Judge.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court satisfied its obligation to provide an adequate explanation for its fee reduction. Although this court has approved the use of across-the-board percentage reductions of fee awards, use of percentages “neither discharges the district court from its responsibility to set forth a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for choosing a given percentage reduction nor from its duty to independently review the applicant’s fee request.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1400 (9th Cir.1992). In less complicated cases with relatively small fee requests, the district court should be able to consider the briefs and examine the billing records to identify specific inefficiencies “without expending a great deal of judicial time doing so.” Ferland v. Conrad Credit Corp., 244 F.3d 1145, 1150 (9th Cir.2001). Even in cases where an across-the board method is appropriate, “there is still the need for the district court to provide, after independent perusal of the record, some explanation for the precise reduction chosen.” Id.