NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GARY SCHERER,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

WOODLEY

- VANOMEN PROPERTIES; TMT WIRELESS, INC.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 55201

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 08239

- GW

- AFM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2021 * * Pasadena, California

Before: KLEINFELD, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Gary Scherer appeals from the district court’s order granting his motion for

attorney ’s fees in his action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the

California Unruh Civil Rights Act

. As the parties are familiar with the f acts, we do

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 8 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

not recount them here. W e affirm.

“The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable

[attorney’s] fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation

multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate,” also “known as the lodestar.” Vogel v.

Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC , 893 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

“ In determining the appropria te lodestar amount, the district court may exclude

from the fee request any hours that are ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise

unnecessary.’” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. , 480 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2007)

(citation omitted).

Here, t he district court ut ilized the lodestar meth od, reviewed over 100

billing entries
, and excluded or reduced entries it found unreasonable such as

“duplicative entries, entries where the time billed was unreasonably long and

entries where attorneys [were] billing for administra tive work far below their

capabilities.” The district court also reduced hours for overstaffing and “blatant

overbilling.” These entries were reasonably reduced or excluded from the lodestar

amount because they were “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id.

T his “is precisely the kind of assessment that is entitled to considerable deference

because of the district court’s superior understanding of the l itigation.” Id. at 949

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)

.

“ [ W ] hen the district court makes its award, it must explain how it came up3

with the amount. The explanation need not be elaborate, but it must be

comprehensible [

. ] ” Carter v. Cal eb Brett LLC , 757 F.3d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 2014 )

(citation omitted)

. “ While detailed calculations are not mandated, ‘something

more than a bald, unsupported amount is necessary’ to affirm an award of

attorneys’ fees.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, t he di strict court gave a

“comprehensible” explanation for the rate set and ultimate award, providing

substantially more than a “bald, unsupported amount.” See id

. (citation omitted).

Finally , Schere r’s argument that the district court was biased is without

m erit

. And because we affirm, reassignment to a new district court judge is moot

.

AFFIRMED

.