Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05083/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-05083-1/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

 1 The holding of this court is limited to the facts and the particular circumstances

underlying the present motion.

 2 Rule 68 provides, inter alia, that “[a]t any time more than 10 days before the trial begins,

the party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be

taken against the defending party . . . with costs then accrued.”

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSE JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN BENITO,

Defendants. __________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-5083

ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY’S

FEES

Plaintiff Jimenez filed a motion for attorney’s fees on October 4, 2005.1 Based on

the briefs and arguments presented, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees in the amount

of $71,460.

Plaintiff filed this motion for attorney’s fees after accepting on September 30,

2005 an offer pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 682

 (hereafter “Rule 68 offer”) in this excessive

police force action. The Rule 68 offer, as accepted by Plaintiff, provided for $21,000 plus

reasonable attorney’s fees. Plaintiff’s counsel (hereafter Marder) submitted billing

Case 5:04-cv-05083-PVT Document 36 Filed 01/05/06 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

 3 The $7,500 sought for bringing this motion is based on a calculation of 20 hours,

multiplied by $375.

 4 Marder submits billing entries of 222.20 hours to bring this matter to settlement, plus an

additional 16 hours to bring this motion for attorney’s fees, not including any time associated with orally

arguing this motion which Marder estimates would have taken 4 hours. Because the court decided to rule

on this motion without a hearing, those 4 additional hours associated with attending a hearing are not

included in the total computation of hours.

 5 These two experts noted that Marder took over 30 hours to perform initial research and

file an eight-page complaint in this straightforward excessive police force action, when an experienced

civil rights attorney would have spent much less time - no more than 4 hours - in researching, drafting and

filing this type of civil action.

ORDER, page 2

records to Defendants which itemized 222.20 hours spent by Marder in handling this

matter, multiplied by $375 per hour, for a total of $83,325 in attorney’s fees, as well as

$2,719.26 in costs. Defendants perceived these amounts to be unreasonable and refused

to pay. Thus, Plaintiff filed the instant motion.

Plaintiff now seeks $83,325, plus an additional $7,500 for bringing this motion,3

plus an upward adjustment to the lodestar, plus statutory interest.

 In his supporting declaration, filed with this motion, Marder asserts that he spent

238.20 hours in handling this matter,4

 and that his billing rate is $375.00 per hour.

Defendant argues that Marder’s stated hours are such that he either inflated his

hours or spent excessive hours on this matter due to his relative inexperience in handling

this type of action. Defendant submits the declarations of two well-known, local plaintiff

civil rights attorneys, Kirchick and Boskovich, both of whom opine that Marder

undertook unnecessary tasks and spent excessive amounts of time on other tasks,5

 due to

his relative inexperience.

In reviewing the court file and Marder’s time records, the court finds that Marder’s

stated hours are indicative of his relatively low level of experience as a plaintiff civil

rights attorney specializing in excessive police force cases.

///

///

///

///

Case 5:04-cv-05083-PVT Document 36 Filed 01/05/06 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

 6 Boskovich opined that the range of hourly rates for civil rights litigators in San Jose is 

$150 - $400 per hour. Furthermore, Boskovich’s billing rate is $250 per hour and Kirchick’s billing rate

is $300 per hour.

 7 Notably, the court found only one indirect reference by Plaintiff to authority which he

believes supports his contention that he is entitled to statutory interest. See Exhibit A to Marder Decl. in

Support of Motion for Attorney’s Fees, at p. 1. In the meet and confer letter regarding plaintiff’s attorney

fees and costs which comprises Exhibit A, Marder cites Foley v. City of Lowell, 948 F.2d 10 (1st Cir.

1991). However, that case is inapposite because the statutory interest entitlement in Foley arose from the

Massachusetts state-law jury verdicts and the relevant Massachusetts statute. Whereas, in this action, the

Plaintiff brought only federal claims.

ORDER, page 3

Defendant also argues that Marder’s stated billing rate is high, given prevailing

billing rates in San Jose6

 and Marder’s level of experience in handling these types of

actions. In such cases, the court has discretion to reduce the hourly rate. See Trevino v.

Gates, 99 F.3d 911, 924-925 (9th Cir. 1996).

In determining that Marder is relatively inexperienced in litigating plaintiff

excessive police force cases, the court finds his stated billing rate unwarranted and

reduces it accordingly from a rate of $375 per hour to a rate of $300 per hour. Thus,

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees equal to $300 multiplied by 238.20

hours for a total of $71,460.

The court finds that an upward adjustment of the lodestar is unreasonable in view

of the fact that this litigation concluded within one year from the time the action was

filed. See, contra, Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (1989) (a case in which the

attorneys waited several years to realize their contingency fees), nor is there any basis for

an award of statutory interest on the fee award, especially in view of the fact that Plaintiff

did not cite any statutory or case authority in requesting statutory interest.7

///

Dated: 1/5/06

____________________________

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:04-cv-05083-PVT Document 36 Filed 01/05/06 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

ORDER, page 4

Case 5:04-cv-05083-PVT Document 36 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 4