FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LEGAL VOICE, FKA Northwest

Women’s Law Center,

Non-Party-Appellant,

v.

STORMANS INC., DBA Ralph’s

Thriftway; RHONDA MESLER;

MARGO THELEN,

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

No. 12-35224

D.C. No.

3:07-cv-05374-

RBL

ORDER

Filed July 2, 2014

Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Susan P. Graber,

and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

Order
2 LEGAL VOICE V. STORMANS, INC.

SUMMARY*

Attorneys’ Fees

The panel granted the request of Legal Voice f/k/a

Northwest Women’s Law Center for publication of the

panel’s prior order filed March 31, 2014, which granted the

Law Center’s motion for attorneys’ fees on appeal and

transferred the matter to the district court under Ninth Circuit

Rule 39-1.8, for a determination of the amount of fees to be

awarded.

In the March 31, 2014, order, the panel noted that it had

previously held that, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

45(d)(2)(B)(ii), the Law Center was entitled to at least a

portion of the expenses it incurred in the district court,

including attorneys’ fees, in complying with the subpoena

duces tecum served on it by plaintiffs. See Legal Voice v.

Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2013). The panel

determined that its holding that the Law Center was entitled

to attorneys’ fees in the district court necessarily led to the

conclusion that the Law Center also was entitled to attorneys’

fees on appeal. 

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
LEGAL VOICE V. STORMANS, INC. 3

ORDER

The request of Legal Voice f/k/a Northwest Women’s

Law Center for publication of the Order filed March 31,

2014, is granted, and that Order, in the form filed

concurrently herewith, is ordered published.

ORDER

Legal Voice f/k/a Northwest Women’s Law Center (“Law

Center”) has moved for an award of attorneys’ fees on appeal. 

For the reasons briefly discussed below, we grant the Law

Center’s motion and transfer the matter to the district court

under our local rule for a determination of the amount of fees

to be awarded.

We previously held that, under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 45(d)(2)(B)(ii), the Law Center is entitled to at

least a portion of the expenses it incurred in the district court,

including attorneys’ fees, in complying with the subpoena

duces tecum served on it by Plaintiffs. See Legal Voice v.

Stormans Inc., 738 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2013). Our holding

that the Law Center is entitled to attorneys’ fees in the district

court necessarily leads to the conclusion that the Law Center

also is entitled to attorneys’ fees on appeal. Generally, a

party that is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees in the

district court is also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees on

appeal. See, e.g., Stewart v. Gates, 987 F.2d 1450, 1454 (9th

Cir. 1993) (noting that appellate attorneys’ fees may be

awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988’s fee-shifting provision to

a party that successfully defends an award on appeal);

Planned Parenthood of Cent. & N. Ariz. v. Arizona, 789 F.2d
4 LEGAL VOICE V. STORMANS, INC.

1348, 1354 (9th Cir. 1986) (awarding attorneys’ fees on

appeal under § 1988 when the plaintiff won on the merits in

the district court and on appeal). We have no trouble

applying this general rule here, when the very purpose of the

appeal was to establish the entitlement to fees. See Orange

Blossom P’Ship v. S. Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc. (In re S.

Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc.), 608 F.3d 456, 462–65 (9th

Cir. 2010) (noting that in statutory fee cases, federal courts

have uniformly held that attorneys are entitled to be

compensated for the time reasonably spent establishing their

right to the fee); Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d

973, 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (“This is so because it would be

inconsistent to dilute a fees award by refusing to compensate

attorneys for the time they reasonably spent in establishing

their rightful claim to the fee.”).

That some of the legal services were provided pro

bono does not alter our analysis or conclusion. Attorneys’

fees are recoverable by pro bono attorneys to the same extent

that they are recoverable by attorneys who charge for their

services. See Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 94 (1989)

(“[W]here there are lawyers or organizations that will take a

plaintiff’s case without compensation, that fact does not bar

the award of a reasonable fee.”).

We conclude, therefore, that the Law Center is entitled to

its reasonable attorneys’ fees on appeal. Because, under our

mandate, the district court is required to determine the

amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded to the Law Center

under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) for work in the district court, see

Legal Voice, 738 F.3d at 1185, we transfer this matter to the

district court to determine the amount to be awarded as fees

on appeal. See Ninth Cir. R. 39-1.8.
LEGAL VOICE V. STORMANS, INC. 5

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Law Center’s motion for attorneys’ fees on

appeal is granted; the Law Center is entitled to an award of its

reasonable fees on appeal.

2. Determination of the amount to be awarded as

attorneys’ fees on appeal is transferred to the district court

under Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.8.