Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01746/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01746-2/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hesam Mohajerin, an individual, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Pinal County, a political subdivision of

the State of Arizona, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-1746-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On March 20, 2008, Defendants submitted an offer of judgment to settle this civil

rights action. Dkt. #46. On April 1, 2008, Plaintiff provided notice to the Court that he

accepted the offer of $25,000, “plus costs accrued as of March 20, 2008[.]” Dkt. #47.

Thereafter, Plaintiff timely filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs (Dkt. #49) and a

supporting memorandum (Dkt. #55).

Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiff is entitled to costs or that the “costs”

contemplated by the offer of judgment include attorney’s fees. Defendants instead dispute

the amount due Plaintiff. Dkt. #56. Plaintiff has replied to Defendants’ objections.

Dkt. #57. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion in part.

I. Legal Standard.

Generally, “each party in a lawsuit ordinarily shall bear its own attorney’s fees,” but

district courts are authorized “to award a reasonable attorney's fee to prevailing parties in

civil rights litigation.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983); see 42 U.S.C.

§ 1988. In determining an appropriate award of attorney’s fees, the Court may look to the

Case 2:07-cv-01746-DGC Document 60 Filed 06/25/08 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

27

28

- 2 -

lodestar figure, which is arrived at by “multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended

on the litigation by the reasonable hourly rate.” Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int'l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614,

622 (9th Cir. 1993). This amount is “the presumptively accurate measure of reasonable

fees.” Ballen v. City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). The

Court may adjust this amount upwards or downwards based on a consideration of the time

and labor required, the customary fee, and the experience, reputation, and ability of the

attorneys. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429-30 & n. 3. The Court may also draw upon its own

experience in considering the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees. See Chalmers v. City of

Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1214 (9th Cir. 1986).

II. Discussion.

Plaintiff seeks $11,570.00 in attorney’s fees and $435.32 in non-taxable costs.

Dkt. #55 at 1. Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s reasonable fees amount to only $2,973.00

in attorney’s fees and $435.32 in non-taxable costs. Dkt. #56, Ex. 2. The Court will award

Plaintiff $9,206.40 in attorney’s fees and $435.32 in non-taxable costs. 

Plaintiff argues that his counsel’s hourly rate of $350.00 is reasonable under the

circumstances. Dkt. #55. Plaintiff’s counsel, Joel B. Robbins, states in his affidavit that he

charges clients $300.00 per hour where the clients “are individuals with limited resources.”

Dkt. #55, Ex. 2 ¶16. He also states that most of his clients are “indigent or close thereto” and

cites Plaintiff as an example. Id. at ¶12 (“[Plaintiff] was earning $9.75 per hour at the time

of his arrest and, due to his arrest and incarceration, he lost that job.”). Mr. Robbins does not

explain the discrepancy of ordinarily charging lower income clients $300.00 per hour and

charging Plaintiff, an “indigent,” $350.00 per hour. Considering this fact and the Court’s

experience in other cases, the Court finds Plaintiff’s counsel’s normal rate of $300.00 per

hour to be reasonable. 

Plaintiff also asks for $155.00 per hour for services performed by paralegal Evan

Haglund. Dkt. #55 at 6. Plaintiff initially provided Defendants with a summary of fees and

costs which listed Mr. Haglund’s rate as $140 per hour. Id., Ex. 1, Ex. A at 8. Defendants

charge that Plaintiff has apparently inflated this rate for purposes of obtaining higher fees.

Case 2:07-cv-01746-DGC Document 60 Filed 06/25/08 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

27

28

- 3 -

Dkt. #56 at 5. Plaintiff does not address why a higher fee is being sought for Mr. Haglund.

The Court will reduce Mr. Haglund’s rate to $140 per hour. The Court finds that this is

reasonable. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429-30 & n. 3.

Defendant objects to several of Plaintiff counsel’s itemized fees because they

aggregate multiple discrete tasks. Dkt. #56 at 9-10. Plaintiff responds that the fees in

question do not constitute impermissible aggregation, but instead include tasks related to a

single, larger task. Dkt. #57 at 9-10. The party seeking fees has the burden of proving the

reasonableness of its fee request. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. To satisfy this burden, the

party must describe its fees with sufficient specificity to enable the Court to determine

whether the requested fees are reasonable. See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d

67, 70 (9th Cir.1975). Block billing “makes it more difficult to determine how much time

was spent on particular activities” and thus whether the associated fees are reasonable.

Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 2007). A Court may reduce the

requested hours where counsel has “lump[ed] together multiple tasks, making it impossible

to evaluate their reasonableness.” Id. (quoting Role Models Am., Inc. v. Brownlee, 353 F.3d

962, 971 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Counsel’s aggregate time entries prevent the Court from

determining the reasonableness of most of those entries. The Court will reduce the aggregate

entries identified in Defendants’ response by thirty percent, with the exception of the entry

on November 16, 2007. See Dkt. #55, Ex. 3 (chart summarizing fees); Dkt. #56 at 9-10

(enumerating the challenged fees).

III. Conclusion.

The Court awards Plaintiff $2,661.00 ($300.00 per hour rate x 8.87 hours) for work

done by Mr. Robbins, $5,649.00 ($140.00 per hour rate x 40.35 hours) for work done by Mr.

Haglund, $716.40 ($180 per hour rate x 3.98 hours) for work done by Anne E. Fielding,

$138.00 ($60.00 per hour rate x 2.3 hours) for work done by Vicki Porell, and $42.00 ($60

per hour rate x .70 hours) for work done by Laura Hopkins. Plaintiff is awarded a total of

$9,206.40 in attorney’s fees and $435.32 in non-taxable costs.

Case 2:07-cv-01746-DGC Document 60 Filed 06/25/08 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

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees (Dkt. # 49) is granted to the

extent that Plaintiff is awarded $9,206.40 in attorney’s fees and $435.32 in non-taxable costs.

DATED this 24th day of June, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01746-DGC Document 60 Filed 06/25/08 Page 4 of 4