Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00958/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00958-31/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

Judge Larson issued a report analyzing the issues presented in Plaintiff’s motion, but

did not recommend any particular amount to be awarded.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHANIE HARRINGTON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

POLICE OFFICER DEBBIE PEECOOK and

POLICE OFFICER BRETT POTTER, in their

individual and official capacities,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-00958 JSW

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’

FEES

Now before the Court is Plaintiff Stephanie Harrington’s motion for attorneys’ fees and

costs and Defendants’ motion for a de novo review of Chief Magistrate Judge Larson’s Report

and Recommendation this motion.1 The motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision. The

Court finds these motions suitable for disposition without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 

Accordingly, the hearing set for February 10, 2006, is VACATED. 

The Court may grant Plaintiff as the prevailing party her reasonable attorneys’ fees

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (“Section 1988”). To determine reasonable attorney’s fees under

Section 1988, courts “should first determine the lodestar amount by calculating the number of

hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.... The district

court may then, in its discretion, adjust the lodestar amount after considering other factors that

bear on the reasonableness of the fee.” Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 812 (9th Cir. 2005)

Case 3:04-cv-00958-JSW Document 222 Filed 02/07/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

(internal cites and quotations omitted). The Court has examined the relevant factors and

determined that Plaintiff’s requested attorneys’ fees should be reduced by twenty-five percent. 

Plaintiff’s attorneys have spent a total of 807.7 hours litigating this case, including the present

motion for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff was awarded $10,000 by the jury in this case. Although

this amount is less than what Plaintiff sought, it is not a nominal award. Moreover, the Court

finds that Plaintiff’s jury verdict confers a substantial non-monetary benefit on both Plaintiff and

the public. However, the Court finds some reduction is appropriate in light of the fact that

Defendants were able to limit the number of defendants and claims that were tried through a

successful motion for summary judgment. 

The Court concludes that $400 is a reasonable hourly rate for both David M. Helbraun

and David Hicks and declines to award the requested enhancement of $75 per hour. Plaintiff

also seeks $918 for work done by a paralegal and $29,392 in costs. Plaintiff already sought

$15,752.56 in her Bill of Costs and was awarded $13,319.34 by the Clerk. The Court will

therefore deduct the $15,752.56 Plaintiff previously requested. Thus, the total amount of

attorneys fees and costs amounts to $337,538.44. Reducing this amount by twenty-five percent,

the Court hereby awards Plaintiff $253,153.83 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 7, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00958-JSW Document 222 Filed 02/07/06 Page 2 of 2