Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01780/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01780-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD LEVINE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-01780 CRB

ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL

ATTORNEY’S FEES

Now pending before the Court is plaintiff’s Application for Award of Supplemental

Attorney’s Fees for additional work expended in support of his Motion for Attorney’s Fees

after the cross-motions were filed on June 1, 2006. Plaintiff originally requested an award of

$153,655.00. On July 5, 2006, the Court issued an Order granting plaintiff’s $26,552.50 in

attorney’s fees. 

The Ninth Circuit “has repeatedly held that time spent by counsel in establishing the

right to a fee award is compensable.” Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d

1536, 1544 (9th Cir. 1992) vacated and remanded on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345.

However, a proportionate reduction in such fees may be warranted. See Thompson v.

Gomez, 45 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1995) (noting that “fees for fee litigation should be

excluded to the extent that the applicant ultimately fails to prevail in such litigation”). Thus,

as explained by the Thompson court, the relative degree of success in litigating for merits

fees should bear upon the size of the fees-on-fees award. Id at 1368. Furthermore, a court

Case 3:04-cv-01780-CRB Document 132 Filed 07/31/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2004\1780\order re supplemental attorney's fees.wpd 2

may determine what percentage of the merit fees requested were awarded, and award that

same percentage of the fees on fees requested. Id. at 1368.

Plaintiff’s actual award was 17.3 percent of what he originally requested. In this

Application, plaintiff further requests $6,370.00 based on 19.6 hours of attorney time,

supported by declaration, at the hourly rate of $325 set by the Court in the July 5 Order. 

Applying the same percentage used for the merit fee award, the Court hereby orders that

plaintiff shall receive an additional $1,102.01 in supplemental fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 31, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-01780-CRB Document 132 Filed 07/31/06 Page 2 of 2