Velez

*513 MEMORANDUM **

PlaintiffiApp ellant Pauline Velez (“Velez”) appeals the district court’s order granting her request for attorneys’ fees. We remand this case to the district court for findings consistent with this memorandum.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here. The district court’s assessment of attorney’s fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 362 (9th Cir.1996) (as amended). “A district court abuses its discretion when it awards fees based on an inaccurate view of the law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.” Wilcox v. City of Reno, 42 F.3d 550, 553 (9th Cir.1994) (internal quotation omitted).

Velez argues that the district court abused its discretion by reducing the lodestar amount by 25% based upon its finding that she did not obtain a total victory or complete vindication, and by not treating the lodestar amount as presumptively reasonable. We agree.

Although the district court cited to Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), it failed to properly apply the process required to determine attorneys’ fees.…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that the magistrate judge (MJ) abused his discretion by reducing the lodestar amount by 25%. I disagree, however, that the MJ abused his discretion by compensating some of Velez’s attorneys and their staff at less than their requested hourly rates.

I

Velez provided the MJ with attorney declarations indicating that Lee and Yamauchi’s requested rate of $475.00 per hour was “in line with rates charged for comparable complex employment litigation” in the Bay Area. Although the MJ found the declarations “competent and probative,” he also found that they “lack[ed] some degree of specificity and precision in establishing the comparability of the referenced firms and attorneys to Mr. Lee and Mr. Yamauchi.” Furthermore, the MJ found the absence of evidence that Lee or Yamauchi actually charge fee-paying clients $475.00 for their services “problematic.”

In rebuttal, the Air Force submitted an “expert” declaration (the Schratz declaration), which, in turn, relied on a two-year old survey of attorneys fees. The MJ *517 found the survey “problematic.” Indeed, the MJ found that “[t]o the extent the survey has any probative…