T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T M A RI A BA RRI O S, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. D I A M O N D CO N TRA CT SERV I CES, I N C ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 55603 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 7 - c v - 0 3 5 0 0 - R - F MO ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a nue l L . R e a l , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r6, 2011

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: B . F L E T C H E R , S IL V E R M A N , an d W A R D L A W , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A pp el l antM ar i a B arri os w as a pre vai l i ng pl ai nt i ff i n an act i on brou gh tun der T i t l e V I I a nd C a l i f

orni a ’ s F a i rE m pl oy m e nta nd H ous i ng A c t . B a rr i os appe a l s the de ni a l of s t a tut ory a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s a nd pa rt i a l de ni a l of c os t s . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on



# FI LED DE C 13 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSC a s e s i nt e rpr e t i ng 42 U . S . C . § 1988 a l s o appl yt o T i t l e V I I ’ s f e e - s hi f t i ng 1 p r o v is io n . D avis v . C i t

y & Cnt y. of Sa n Francisc o , 9 7 6 F .2 d 1 5 3 6 , 1 5 4 1 n .1 ( 9 th C i r. 19 92 ). P age 2 of 4 pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd t o ane w di s tr i c tc ourtj udge f orapr ope rf

e e c a l c ul a t i on.

“ W e r e vi e w the a w a r d orde ni a l of a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s f orabus e of di sc re t i on . . . . ” C oal . f orC le an A i rv . S. C al . E dis on C o. , 9 7 1 F .2 d 2 1 9 , 2 2 9 ( 9 th C i r . 1992) . “ W e w i l l r e ve r s e i f the di s tr i c tc ourtm i s pe r c e i ve s orm i s appl i e s the l aw go verni ng fe e aw ar ds. ” I d. 1. In T i t l e V II ca se s, a pre vai l i ng pl ai nt i ff “ ordi nari l y i s t o b e aw ar ded att orney’ s f

ee s i n al l bu tspec i al ci rc um st ance s. ” Christ i an sburg G arm ent C o. v. EE OC , 4 3 4 U .S . 4 1 2 , 4 1 7 ( 1 9 7 8 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n w h e n it d eter m in ed th at sp ec ial circu m stan ce s ju stified a c o m p lete d en ial o f a tt o rn ey ’s f e e s . T h e c o n tin g e n c y f

e e a g r e e m e n t b e tw e e n B a rr io s a n d h e rc o u n s e l w a s n o t a s p e c ia l c ir c u m s ta n c e . A tto rn e y ’s f e e s u n d e rT itle V I I b e lo n g to th e p a rty , a n d T itle V I I ’ s f e e - s hi f t i ng pr ovi s i on doe s not“ r e gul a t e w ha tpl a i nt i f f s m a y orm a y not prom i se t o p aythei r a tt orneys i f they l ose or i f they w i n. ” V e n eg a s v . Mitc h e ll , 495 U . S . 82, 86–87 ( 1990) . T he “ ul t i m a t e di s pos i t i on” of the f e e a w a r d i s “ de pe nde nt 1 on the contra ctbetw ee n the l aw ye r and the cl i ent . ” G i lbr ook v . C i t y of W es tm i nster , 1 7 7 F .3 d 8 3 9 , 8 7 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ; s e e al s o L os A ng el es C nty. B arP age 3 of 4

A ss oc. , P rof’ l R es p. & E thi cs C om m . , O p. 52 3 (20 09 ) ( concl ud i ng thata s i m i l ar f e e a rr a nge m e ntdi d notvi ol a t e the C a l i f orni aR ul e s of

P r of e s s i ona l C onduc t ) . T he di stri ctcourt ’ s other c on ce rns — i ncl ud i ng w hether the ho urs bi l l ed w er e r e a s onabl e , w he the rc ouns e l ’ s bi l l i ng r e c or ds w e r e a de qua t e , a nd w he the rB a rr i os ac hi eved l i m i t ed succ es s on the m er i t s — shou l d h ave been subsum ed i n a l od es t ar c a lc u la tio n . H

en sley v. E ckerh a rt , 4 6 1 U .S . 4 2 4 , 4 3 3

– 3 5 ( 1 9 8 3 ) ; Mendez v . Cnt y. of San B e rnardi no , 5 4 0 F .3 d 1 1 0 9 , 1 1 2 8

– 2 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) ; Mor ale s v . C i t y of Sa n R af ael , 9 6 F .3 d 3 5 9 , 3 6 3

– 6 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ; C unni ngham v . Cnt y . of L os A ng eles , 8 7 9 F .2 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 6 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . 2. T he di stri ctcourtal so m i sapp l i ed the l aw w hen i tdet erm i ned that B a rr i os w a s note nt i t l e d t o a ny f e e s orc os t s a f

t e rD i a m ond C ontr a c tS e rvi c e s m a de aR ul e 68 of

f e rof j udgm e nt . T he di s tr i c tc ourts houl d ha ve c om pa r e d the of f e rof ju d g m e n t to th e ju ry v e r d ic t plus B a rr io s ’s r e a s o n ab le a tto rn e y ’s f e e s a n d c o s ts in c u rr e d a t th e tim e th e R u le 6 8 o f f e rw a s m a d e . C order v . G at es , 947 F . 2d 374, 38 0 n . 9 (9th C i r. 19 91 ). 3 . W e in s tru c t th e C h ie f J u d g e f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn iato re as si gn thi s c as e t o a di ff er entdi stri ctj ud ge on re m and. O ur supervi sorypo w er s un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 10 6 p erm i tus t o rea ss i gn ca se s on rem and w hen “ un usual c ir c u m s ta n c e s ” a r e p r e s e n t. U ni te d N at ’ l I ns . C o. v . R & D L atex C or p. , 242 F . 3dP age 4 of 4

1102, 1118 ( 9th C i r . 2001) . R e a s s i gnm e nti s w a rr a nt e d he r e be c aus e the j udge m ay“ have subst ant i al di ff i cul ty i n p utt i ng ou tof hi s . . . m i nd previ ou sl y e xp re ss ed v ie w s o rf

in d in g s d e te rm in e d to b e e rr o n e o u s ,” m a k in g “r e a s s ig n m e n t . . . advi sabl e t o p re se rve the appearance of j ust i ce . ” I d. ( quot i ng U

ni ted Stat es v. Se ars , R oe buc k

& C o. , 78 5 F . 2d 77 7, 78 0 (9th C i r. 19 86 )) . G i ven the l i m i t ed s c ope of a n a tt orne y ’ s f

e e s de t e rm i na t i on, a ny m i ni m a l pot e nt i a l f orw a s t e or d u p lic a tio n is o u tw e ig h e d b y th e n e e d to p r e s e rv e th e ap p e a r a n c e o f f a irn e s s . I

d. at 1118–19. R E V E R S E D and R E M A N D E D for aprop erfe e c al cul at i on before a di ff er entdi stri ctcourtj ud ge.