Bell v. Clackamas County

Good Law
341 F.3d 858·2003 WL 22025134
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 29, 2003Nos. 01-35508, 01-35854, 01-35545, 01-35790California4,799 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Goodwin, J.

ORDER AND AMENDED OPINION

ORDER

The opinion filed August 20, 2003, slip op. 11661, is amended as follows:

Delete entire section IV, on page 22, slip op. 11679-11680, and replace with the new section IV:

IV.

Bell also cross-appeals the trial court’s reduction of his attorneys’ hourly rates from $200 to $175. He argues that the trial court erred in relying on an unpublished decision, Davis v. Wyatt, CV 97-1388-ST (D.Or. Oct. 20, 1998), to award attorney fees here for work performed in 2000 and 2001 at the same rate awarded in that 1998 decision. We agree.

A court awarding attorney fees must look to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 , 104 S.Ct. 1541 , 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). We have held that the court has discretion to apply the rates in effect at the time the work was performed, see Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502 (9th Cir.1997); Schwarz v. Secretary of HHS, 73 F.3d 895, 908-09 (9th Cir.1995). The court may also award rates at an attorney’s current rate where appropriate to compensate for the lengthy delay in receiving payment:

Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 284 , 109 S.Ct. 2463 , 105 L.Ed.2d 229…

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.