F OR P UBLICATION



### UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT

L E G AL V O I C E , F KA Northwest W omen’s L a

w Center, Non-Party-Appellant
,

v.

S T O R M A N S I N C ., DB A Ralph’s Thriftway ; R H ON D A M E S L E R ; M A R G O T H E L E

N , Plaintiffs-Appellees

. No. 12-35224

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-05374- RB L

ORDER

F iled J uly 2, 2014

B efore: A. W a llace Tashima, Susan P. Graber, and Mary H. Murg u ia, Circuit J udg es.

OrderL E G A L V O I C E V

. S T O R

M A N S , I N C

. 2

SUMMARY *

Attorneys’ F ees

T h e panel g ranted the request of L eg al Voice f/k/ a Northwest Women’s L aw Cente r fo r publication of the panel’s prior order fil e d M a r c h 3 1, 2014, which g ranted the L aw Center’s motion for at torney s’ fees on a ppeal a nd transferred the matter to the district court under Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.8, for a determination o f t h e amount of fees to be awarded.

I n the March 31, 2014, order, the panel n o t e d that it h ad previously h eld that, under F ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(2)(B )(ii), the L aw Center w as entitled to a t l e a s t a portion o f the ex penses it incurred in the distr i c t co u rt, including a ttorney s’ fees, in c omply ing with t h e subpoena duces tecum served on it by p laintiffs. See Lega l V o ice v

. Stormans Inc.
, 738 F .3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2013). Th e panel determined that its holding that the L aw Center was entitled to attorney s’ fees in the district court necessarily le d to the conclusion that the L aw Center also was entitled to attorney s’ fees on appeal.

* T h is su m m ary co n stitu

tes n o part o f th e o p in io n o f th e co u rt. It h as b eenp rep ared b y

co urt staf

f f o r th e co n v en i en ce o f

th e read er.L E G A L V O I C E V

. S T O R

M A N S , I N C

. 3

ORDER

The request of L eg al Voice f/k/a Northwest W o me n’s L aw Center for publica tion of the Order filed March 31, 2014, is g ranted, and that Order, in the form filed concurrently

herewith, is ordered published.

ORDER

L eg al Voice f/k/a Northwest W omen’s L aw Center (“L aw Center”) has moved for an a ward of attorney s’ fees on appeal. F or the reasons briefly discussed below, we g ran t the L aw Center’s motion and transfer the matter to the district court under our local rule for a determination o f the amount of fees to be awarded.

W e p reviously held that, u n d er F ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 5(d)(2)(B )(ii), the L aw Center is entitled to at least a portion of the e x penses it incurred in the district court, i n c luding attorney s’ fees, in comply ing with the subpoen a duces tecum served on it by Plaintiffs. See L e g a l V o i ce v

. Stormans Inc.
, 738 F .3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2013). Ou r holding that the L aw Center is entitled to attorney s’ fees in the district court necessarily leads to the conclusion that the L aw Center also is entitled to at t o rney s’ f ees on appeal. Generally
, a party that is ent i t l e d t o an a ward o f attorney s’ fees in the district court is also entitled to an a ward of attorney s’ fees on appeal. See, e.g. , Stewart v. G ates , 987 F .2d 1450, 1 454 (9th Cir. 1993) (noting that appellate a t t o rney s’ fees may be awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988’s fee-shif t i n g provision to

a p arty that successfully defends an award on appeal ) ; Planned Parenthood of Cent. & N. Ariz. v. Arizona
, 789 F .2dL E G A L V O I C E V

. S T O R

M A N S , I N C

. 4

1348, 1 354 (9th Cir. 1986) ( awarding attorney s’ fees on appeal under § 1988 when the plaintiff won on the merits in the district court and o n a ppeal). W e have n o trouble apply ing this g eneral rule here, when the very p urpose of the

a p p e a l was to establish the entitlement to fees. See O ra n g e Blossom P ’Ship v. S. Cal. Sunbelt Developers, Inc. (In re S. Cal. Sunbelt Developers, In c

. )
, 608 F .3d 456, 462–65 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that in statutory f e e c ases, federal courts have uniformly he ld that attorney s are entitled to be compensated for the time reasonably spent establishing their rig ht to the fee); Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc.
, 523 F .3d 973, 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (“This i s s o because it would be inconsistent to dilute a fees award by refusing to compensate attorney s f

o r the time they r easonably spent in establishing their rig htful claim to the fee.”).

That some of the le g al services were provided pro bono does n ot alter our analy sis o r conclusio n

. A t torney s’ fees are recoverable by pro bono attorney s to the same ex tent that they are recoverable by attorney s w h o charg e f or their services. See B lanchard v. Bergeron
, 4 89 U.S. 87, 94 (1989) (“[ W ] here there are lawy

ers or org aniz ations that will take a plaintiff’s c ase without c o m p ensation, that fact does not bar the award of a reasonable fee.”).

W e conclude, therefore, that the L aw Center is entitled to its reasonable attorney s’ fees on appeal. B ecause, under our mandate, t h e district court is required to determine the amount of attorney s’ fees to be awarded to the L aw Center under Rule 45(d)(2)(B )(ii) f o r w o rk in the district c ourt, see Legal Voice , 738 F .3d at 1185, we transfer this matter to the district c ourt to determine the amount to b e a w arded as fees on appeal. See Ninth Cir. R. 39-1.8.L E G A L V O I C E V

. S T O R

M A N S , I N C

. 5
According ly
, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The L aw Center’s moti o n f or attorney s’ fees on appeal is g r anted; the L aw Center is entitled to an award of its reasonable fees on appeal.

2. Determination o f t h e amount to be awarded a s attorney s’ fees on appeal is transferr e d t o the district court under Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.8.