Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02344/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02344-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Matthew Shaffer, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

State of Arizona Citizens Clean Election

Commission, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-03-2344-PHX-FJM

ORDER

Matthew Shaffer worked for the State of Arizona Citizens Clean Election Commission

("CCEC"). Colleen Connor was his supervisor. A dispute arose within the CCEC over the

accuracy of accounting disclosures by Matt Salmon's gubernatorial campaign, and the

accuracy of Shaffer's analysis of those disclosures. The dispute blossomed, and Connor

instructed Shaffer not to speak publically about the underlying issues, fired him, and accused

him of violating A.R.S. § 13-2311, a felony fraud statute.

Shaffer filed this action for wrongful termination, defamation, false light, negligent

retention, violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights, violation of his First Amendment

rights, and intentional interference with contractual relations. He prevailed on his defamation

claim against the CCEC and Connor and on his Fourteenth Amendment claim against

Connor. The jury awarded him $1,100,000 in damages. Pursuant to our order dated January

19, 2006, he accepted a remittitur to $660,000.

Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 172 Filed 05/17/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The entries related to media communications lack sufficient specificity and therefore

we have no means by which to evaluate whether the services relate to substantive elements

of Shaffer's claims or merely to publicity. To be compensable, media communications must

be "directly and intimately related to the successful representation of a client." Davis v. City

and County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1545 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in unrelated part,

984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, mere publicity does not satisfy this standard.

- 2 -

We now have before us Shaffer's motion and supplemental motion for the award of

attorneys' fees and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (docs. 142 and 168), the

memorandum in support of the motions, the response, and the reply. Although Shaffer did

not prevail on most of his claims, defendants concede that he is the prevailing party and

therefore is entitled to fees pursuant to § 1988. Defendants contend, however, that Shaffer's

request is unreasonable.

Section 1988 attorneys' fees analysis begins with the lodestar amount, which is "the

number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly

rate." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1939 (1983); United

Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 406 (9th Cir. 1990). Shaffer

contends that the lodestar amount is $277,335.50.

That figure is based on an unreasonable number of hours. Shaffer's request of $30,363

for 104.7 hours for the attorneys' fees motion practice alone is plainly excessive, and draws

into question the reasonableness of the balance of his attorneys' fees. Moreover, many

entries in Shaffer's itemized statement of attorneys' fees lack the specificity required by

LRCiv 54.2(e), which prevents us from assessing their reasonableness. And Shaffer

impermissibly requested fees for 7.6 hours of media communications.1

 For these reasons,

we reduce Shaffer's request by 20 percent to $221,868.

Defendants contend that Shaffer's request must be further reduced because it is based

upon an unreasonable hourly rate. We disagree. A fee award should be based upon the

reasonable hourly rate in the forum community for lawyers with the experience, skill, and

reputation of the lawyer requesting the fees. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d

1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 1986). Shaffer based the lodestar amount on the rate of $290 per

Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 172 Filed 05/17/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Defendants disagree, contending that the best evidence of the reasonable market rate

is the contract rate of $250 per hour. However, the contract rate is for the greater of $250 per

hour or 40% of all sums awarded. Shaffer's Memorandum, Ex. B at 1.

- 3 -

hour, which is within the prevailing rate for lawyers with comparable skill and experience

in Phoenix.2

The lodestar amount can be reduced where, as here, a plaintiff achieves success on

only some of his claims. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S. Ct. at 1940. Reduction

requires a two-part analysis. "First, [we] ask[] whether the claims upon which the plaintiff

failed to prevail were related to plaintiff's successful claims. . . . [If related, we] evaluate[]

the 'significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours

reasonably expended on the litigation.' If the plaintiff obtained 'excellent results,' full

compensation may be appropriate . . . ." Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 802 F.2d 1131, 1141

(9th Cir. 1986) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S. Ct. at 1940).

Relatedness is an imprecise concept that is more easily described than defined.

"[R]elated claims will involve 'a common core of facts' or will be based on related legal

theories, while unrelated claims will be 'distinctly different,' and based on different facts and

legal theories." Thorne, 802 F.2d at 1141 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434-35, 103 S. Ct.

at 1939-40). Unrelated claims are intended to remedy "entirely distinct and separate . . .

course[s] of conduct." Id. (quoting Mary Beth G. v. City of Chicago, 723 F.2d 1263, 1279

(7th Cir. 1983)). Relevant considerations include "whether the unsuccessful claims were

presented separately, whether testimony on the successful and unsuccessful claims

overlapped, and whether the evidence concerning one issue was material and relevant to the

other issues." Id. (citations omitted).

Contrary to defendants' contention, Shaffer's claims are all related. They arose out of

a common core of operative facts relating to defendants' handling of Shaffer's analysis of the

Salmon disclosures, and are separate but related legal theories intended to rectify related

harms. Due to the overlap, counsel's legal research and fact gathering roles cannot be

divided on a claim-by-claim basis.

Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 172 Filed 05/17/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Defendants suggest that Shaffer only partially succeeded because "he succeeded on

less than 17 percent (2 of 12) of his claims." Response at 3. The Supreme Court explicitly

rejected defendants' arithmetic approach. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 n. 11, 103 S. Ct. at 1940

n.11.

- 4 -

Moreover, Shaffer achieved excellent results overall. He was awarded $1,100,000 by

the jury, an amount defendants described as "whopping" and "excessive." Motion for

Remittitur at 8-9. The remitted award of $660,000 is also quite excellent, and represents a

recovery of over $800 per hour reasonably expended on the litigation.3

 Because Shaffer's

claims are related and the results are excellent, the lodestar amount need not be reduced.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING plaintiff's motion for the award of

attorneys' fees and expenses, as supplemented (docs. 142, 168) and AWARDING him

$232,552, which is composed of $221,868 for attorneys' fees and $10,684 in reasonable

expenses arising from or related to the claims upon which Shaffer prevailed.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:03-cv-02344-FJM Document 172 Filed 05/17/06 Page 4 of 4