Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01086/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01086-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1395 HHS: Adverse Reimbursement Review

---

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

 Defendant also moves for an award of attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil 1

Procedure 11. Because the court has determined an award under section 1988 is appropriate, the

court will not address defendant’s arguments under Rule 11.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARBARA CLARK,

Plaintiff, CIV S-07-1086 FCD KJM PS

v.

CARRIE NEVANS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants. 

 /

Defendant Hershewe’s motion for attorneys’ fees is pending before the court. 

Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon having heard oral argument, and

good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS:

Defendant brings his motion for attorneys’ fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. That 1

section provides in relevant part: “. . . In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of . . .

42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 - 1983 . . ., the Court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other

than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs. . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 

Authorization for attorneys' fees under section 1988 is different for prevailing defendants in a

Case 2:07-cv-01086-FCD-KJM Document 101 Filed 05/05/08 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

2

civil rights action than for prevailing plaintiffs. Vernon v. City of Los Angeles, 27 F.3d 1385,

1402 (9th Cir.1994). A prevailing defendant may receive an award of attorneys’ fees under

section 1988 "only where the action is found to be unreasonable, frivolous, meritless or

vexatious." Legal Servs. v. Arnett, 114 F.3d 135, 141 (9th Cir.1997). Accordingly, attorneys'

fees in civil rights cases should only be awarded to a defendant in exceptional circumstances. 

Saman v. Robbins, 173 F.3d 1150, 1157-58 (9th Cir.1999). The court finds those exceptional

circumstances here. 

Plaintiff previously sued defendant Hershewe under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Clark v.

Pope, CIV S-05-2410 FCD KJM PS. Defendant Hershewe was dismissed in that action because

his conduct in acting as the attorney representing the employer in plaintiff’s workers’

compensation case could not be fairly characterized as state action. See Findings and

Recommendations filed May 18, 2006 [case no. 05-2410, docket no. 100]. Plaintiff then filed the

present action, again alleging a claim against defendant Hershewe under section 1983 arising out

of the same circumstances underlying her first federal action against this defendant. The court

found this action was meritless and declared plaintiff a vexatious litigant. See Findings and

Recommendations filed October 16, 2007 [case no. 07-1086, docket no. 73]; Order adopting

Findings and Recommendations filed November 14, 2007 [case no. 07-1086, docket no. 74]. 

Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Hershewe was groundless and without foundation from the

outset of this action. An award of attorneys’ fees is therefore warranted in this case. See Hughes

v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 14 (1980); see also Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055,

1061-63 (9th Cir. 2006). 

In calculating a fee award, the court has employed the lodestar method of

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

rate. Hensley v.Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The court has also considered the factors

set forth in Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975); see also Morales v.

City of Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363-64 (9th Cir. 1996). Defense counsel for defendant Hershewe has

Case 2:07-cv-01086-FCD-KJM Document 101 Filed 05/05/08 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 Counsel provided unredacted copies of billing statements for in camera review. 2

3

submitted detailed billings and passed on the reduced rate charged to defendant Hershewe. The 2

court finds there is no overbilling and the total amount of hours claimed, given the numerous

motions that had to be opposed and the extraneous pleadings that had to be reviewed, were

reasonably incurred in defense of this litigation. An appropriate award of attorneys’ fees in this

matter is the reasonable hourly rate proffered by defense counsel, with discounts as set forth in

counsel’s declaration, multiplied by the hours claimed. See Defendant Hershewe’s motion for

attorneys’ fees, Exhibit B [docket no. 87]. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Hershewe’s

motion for attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 be granted in the amount of $35,840

and costs be allowed in the amount of $343.12.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within ten days

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections

with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within

ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 2, 2008.

clark-nevans.fee

Case 2:07-cv-01086-FCD-KJM Document 101 Filed 05/05/08 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

4

Case 2:07-cv-01086-FCD-KJM Document 101 Filed 05/05/08 Page 4 of 4