Case ID: f-appx_31/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harold F. RICE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Rowena Akana; Haunani Apoliona; Donald Cataluna; A. Frenchy Desoto; Louis Hao, Jr.; Clayton Hee; Collette Machado; Hannah Springer; Mililani Trask, Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Intervenors, v. Benjamin J. CAYETANO, Governor of the State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellee, and Mazie K. Hirono, Lieutenant Governor of the State of Hawaii, Defendant.
    No. 01-15130. D.C. No. CV-96-00390-DAE.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2002 .
    Decided Feb. 19, 2002.
    Before WALLACE, KOZINSKI and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

1. The district court “shall accept the [special] master’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(e)(2). The special master’s determination of the amount of time Goemans spent on the case was based on a review of the docket sheet and the billing information of the counsel who handled the case on certiorari. Goemans presented no evidence refuting these findings. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by adopting them. Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1235 (9th Cir.1991).

2. We affirm the district court’s denial of Goemans’s request for a lodestar enhancement. Given that Goemans lost in the district court and on appeal, and was only tangentially involved in litigating the case in the Supreme Court, this is not one of the “exceptional cases [where] quality of representation and exceptional results can, in fact, warrant an adjustment to the lodestar.” Wing v. Asarco, Inc., 114 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir.1997). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in accepting the special master’s finding that the difficulty and undesirability of the case were subsumed in the lodestar. See Stewart v. Gates, 987 F.2d 1450, 1453 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.