Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01196-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

ROBERT MITCHELL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,

Defendants.

2:08-CV-01196-TLN-EFB

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEYS’ 

FEES

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ 

Fees and Expenses. (ECF No. 335.) Having considered the briefing in support of the motion, 

responses from class members, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court 

finds good cause to GRANT the motion.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), class members were informed about the 

fee request in the Class Notice, and a full copy of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Expenses was made available to all class members in the prison libraries. Class members were 

afforded an opportunity to comment or object to the Motion, and this Court held a hearing on the 

Motion on September 24, 2015.

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 377 Filed 10/08/15 Page 1 of 3
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

After review of all briefing and evidence presented, this Court finds and concludes that the 

agreed-upon award of $ 2.375 million is fair and reasonable. Plaintiffs’ action in this case sought 

to end CDCR’s policy and practice of imposing lengthy race-based lockdowns. The settlement 

does just that – it puts a complete stop to all race-based lockdowns, and it ensures that if lengthy 

lockdowns occur, prisoners will be provided access to outdoor exercise. (See Settlement 

Agreement, ¶¶ 15, 18, ECF No. 332-1).

To get to this result, Plaintiffs devoted years to litigating this case, conducting complex 

discovery, meeting and interviewing dozens of prisoners, reviewing and analyzing tens of 

thousands of pages of lockdown reports, engaging and working with four experts, inspecting 

prisons, and taking or defending dozens of expert and lay depositions. (Evenson Decl., ¶¶ 3–6, 

ECF No. 335-1.)

Defendants vigorously contested the claims in this case, and the parties expended 

considerable time and resources in connection with Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion 

for Summary Judgment, Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification, and the numerous other matters 

including discovery disputes that arose over the last four years. (Evenson Decl., ¶6, ECF No. 

335-1.)

The fee request reasonably reflects the time and labor required to litigate this matter, and 

was calculated pursuant to the lodestar method. Plaintiffs’ counsel kept contemporaneous time 

records that detail all work completed, and to calculate the requested award Plaintiffs multiplied 

the number of hours actually worked by a reasonable hourly rate. (Evenson Decl., ¶¶ 8–9, ECF 

No. 335-1.) Though counsel represented the Plaintiffs without charge, Plaintiffs’ counsel 

exercised the same billing judgment and discretion accorded to private clients. (Evenson Decl., ¶ 

8, ECF No. 335-1; Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(“Ultimately, a ‘reasonable’ number of hours equals ‘[t]he number of hours . . . [which] could 

reasonably have been billed to a private client.’”) (citing Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 

1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008)). During negotiations with Defense counsel, Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed 

to reduce their fee request even further, in order to reach an out-of court settlement. (Evenson 

Decl., ¶ 9, ECF No. 335-1.)

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 377 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Courts have long recognized that the lodestar method of calculating fees is strongly 

presumed to be reasonable. Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1482 (9th Cir. 1992) (“There is a 

strong presumption that the lodestar figure is reasonable, and adjustments are to be adopted only 

in exceptional cases.”); see also Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 n.8 (9th Cir. 

1996) (citing Oviatt). The agreed upon fee award also fairly reflects the novelty and difficulty of 

the questions presented, the skill required in litigating this complex case, and the fact that 

Plaintiffs’ counsel litigated this matter on a contingency basis and expended significant hours and 

out-of-pocket expenses doing so.

Accordingly, the request for $2.375 million in attorneys’ fees and expenses is approved as 

fair, adequate and reasonable, and Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 

Expenses (ECF No. 335) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2015

Case 2:08-cv-01196-TLN-EFB Document 377 Filed 10/08/15 Page 3 of 3