Gracie

MEMORANDUM *

After we determined in a prior opinion in this case that the district court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to Defendants for prevailing on their Triangle Design logo trademark claim, we remanded “to permit the district court to make more detailed findings relating to the total amount and reasonableness of the fees awarded, according to the principles set forth in th[at] opinion.” Gracie v. Gracie, 217 F.3d 1060, 1072 (9th Cir.2000). On remand, the district court awarded Defendants $558,214.59 in attorney’s fees and costs. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

First, the district court did not explain its decisions on apportionment between Lanham and non-Lanham Act claims and between claims on which Defendants prevailed and those on which they did not. In our prior opinion, we directed the district court either to “attempt an apportionment or to make findings that apportionment would be impossible.” Id. at 1070 . In determining that apportionment between Lanham and nonLanham Acts claims was impossible, the district court should have considered each non-Lanham Act claim and determined whether the factual and legal bases were…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

*46 I concur with the majority that the district court abused its discretion in calculating the lodestar amount, in its failure to discuss the Kerr factors, and its failure to determine whether the $39,206.93 in expenses are reasonable. I also believe that the district court abused its discretion in failing to explain how it reached the $620,238.43 amount, as the calculation of the hours expended at the hourly rates in its opinion would amount to $462,631.50. I, too, would therefore remand to permit the district court to make more detailed findings relating to the total amount and reasonableness of the fees and expenses awarded.

I dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the district court did not adequately explain its decisions on apportionment between the Lanham and nonLanham Act claims and between claims on which the defendants Rorion Gracie, et al. (Rorion), prevailed and those on which it did not. I also believe we should address some arguments made in briefs by plaintiffs Carley Gracie, et al. (Carley).

On the first appeal, we directed the district court to apportion, attempt to apportion, or make findings that…