N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

M AR TIN GONZALEZ, Sr.; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. C ITY OF M AYW OOD; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-55358 D.C . No. 2:07-c v-03469-ODW -SH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Otis D. W

right II, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 5, 2016 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : C ALLAHAN, B EA, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Se ve nte e n individuals (c olle c tive ly , “ G onz a le z ” ) in e ight c o nsolida te d la wsuits a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s re duc tion of a ttorne y s’ fe e s. W e have jurisdic tion pursua

n t to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we va c a t e the award. 

# FIL ED
D EC 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.The distric t c ourt a b use d its disc re tion in de t e rm i ning tha t Gonz a le z ’ s
a ttorne y s “ p e rform e d onc e and bille d e ight tim e s in m any c irc um sta

nc e s,” be c a

use this finding is “

without support in infe

re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

fa c ts in the
re c o rd.” Unite d State

s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). The C ity of M aywood ha s not ide ntifie d any insta nc e s of oc tuple billing, a

nd we have found none . Nor wa s the distric t c ourt e n title d to ba s e its finding of oc tuple billing on a

m biguous la

ngua ge in Gonz a le z ’ s 2014 M otion for Attorne y s’ Fe e s, give n tha t Gonz a l e z ’ s M otion for R e c onside ra tion c l arifie d any a m biguity . The distric t c o urt the re fore e rre d in re duc ing the a ttorne y s’ re que ste d hours a nd fe e s by 87.5 pe rc e nt. Eve n if we have the a uthority to uphold a

distric t c ourt’ s fe e award on diffe re nt grounds, c

f. He nsle y v . Ec k e r hart , 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983), we de c line to do so in this c a se be c a use a distric t c ourt is in the

be st position to m

a ke the fa c tua l de te rm i n a tions re quire d to de te rm ine the prope r aw a rd of attorne y s’ fe e s in the first insta

nc e . This is the

se c ond tim e we hav e va c a te d Judge W right’ s de te rm ination of the
a m ount of Gonz a le z ’ s attorne y s’ fe e s a w ard. Se e Gonzale

z v . C ity of May w ood , 729 F.3d 1196 (9th C ir. 2013). B a se d on our re vie w of the re c ord, we c onc lude that Judge W right is una

ble to put out of his m

i nd his pre viously

e xpre s se d vie w that Gonz a le z ’ s a ttorne y s are not e ntitle d to fe e s a bove the am ount gra

nte d to
2Gonz a le z in da m a g e s, a nd the re fore re a s signm e nt is a dvisa ble to pre se rve “ the
a ppe aranc e of justic e and the orde rly a dm inistra

tion of this c ourt’ s a

p pe lla te doc ke t.” Unite d State

s v . Se ars, Roe buc k

& C o ., Inc

. , 785 F.2d 777, 780–81 (9th C ir. 1986) (pe r c uriam ). Ac c ordingly , we instruc t the C hie f Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia to re a ssign this c a se to a diffe re nt distric t

judge
. Se eid. a t 779. 1 V ACAT E D, RE M A NDE D, AND RE ASSIG N E D.

1 The pa rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c o sts on a ppe a l. 3