Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0422-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Aleksey NECHITAYLO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The WEDUM FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a California Partnership, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-17550
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 19, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed June 06, 2017
    Irakli Karbelashvili, Esquire, Attorney, Irene Karbelashvili, Attorney, AllAccess Law Group, San Jose, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Cris C. Vaughan, Attorney, Vaughan & Associates, Loomis, CA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: TALLMAN and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and OLIVER, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Aleksey Nechitaylo appeals the district court’s order awarding Nechitaylo’s counsel attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court’s determination that attorney Irene Karbelashvili demonstrated skill below the level expected of an attorney with her experience was not illogical, implausible, or without support in the record. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that $150 was a “reasonable hourly rate” for Karbelashvili based on the quality of her representation. See Van Gerwen v. Guar. Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2000).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in.reducing the number of hours claimed by 25 percent. The district court gave a “concise but clear” explanation of its reasons for the reduction. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). The district court was not required to “set forth an hour-by-hour analysis of the fee request,” and had “the authority to make across-the-board percentage cuts ... in the number of hours claimed.” In re Smith, 586 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992)).

Nechitaylo shall bear all costs of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 39(a)(2).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.