Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-13-04092/USCOURTS-ca3-13-04092-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

_____________

Nos. 13-3988 and 13-4092

_____________

SIXTH ANGEL SHEPHERD RESCUE, INC; 

TERRY ELIZABETH SILVA 

v.

GEORGE BENGAL; NICOLE WILSON; PENNSYLVANIA SPCA

 Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue, Inc.,

 Appellant in No. 13-3988

George Bengal, Nicole Wilson, and Pennsylvania SPCA

 Appellants in No. 13-4092

_____________

 

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

District Court No. 2-10-cv-01733

District Judge: The Honorable Berle M. Schiller 

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

October 9, 2015

Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and BARRY, Circuit Judges

____________________ 

JUDGMENT ORDER

____________________ 

This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on October 9, 2015. 

Case: 13-4092 Document: 003112120705 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2015
2

The cross-appeals in this civil rights action challenge the District Court’s resolution of a 

motion for attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. George Bengal, Nicole 

Wilson, and the Pennsylvania SPCA, defendants in the District Court, conceded that 

Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue, Inc., was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. 

Nonetheless, the defendants objected to several aspects of Sixth Angel’s fee petition. 

The District Court thoughtfully considered the motion and its opposition in a wellreasoned decision in which it reduced the amount of the requested award. These timely 

appeals followed.1

Sixth Angel contends that the District Court erred in several respects by: (1)

reducing counsel’s hourly rate; (2) striking time expended by counsel; (3) refusing to 

consider an updated fee petition; (4) denying a multiplier for the delay endured; and (5) 

rejecting as compensable certain costs.2 The defendants also claim that the District Court

erred by failing to account for Sixth Angel’s limited success. 

“We review the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees for an abuse of 

discretion.” Washington v. Phila. Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1034 (3d 

Cir. 1996). After reviewing the record in this matter and the thorough opinion of the 

District Court, we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting in part and 

 

1

 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Appellate 

jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

2

 Sixth Angel’s opening brief also asserts that the District Court erred by failing to 

address the state court proceeding. We need not address this issue because, contrary to 

the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8), Sixth Angel did not present citations to the 

Case: 13-4092 Document: 003112120705 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2015
3

denying in part the motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, for substantially 

the same grounds set forth in the District Court opinion, we will affirm the District 

Court’s September 23, 2013 order.

On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the

order of the District Court entered September 23, 2013, be and the same is hereby 

AFFIRMED. The parties shall bear their own costs. 

By the Court,

s/D. Brooks Smith

Circuit Judge

Attest:

s/Marcia M. Waldron

Clerk

DATED: November 4, 2015

 

legal authority and the parts of the record on which it relies. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 

F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993). 

Case: 13-4092 Document: 003112120705 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/04/2015