Document: 477 U.S. 561 106 S.Ct. 2686 91 L.Ed.2d 466 CITY OF RIVERSIDE, et al., Petitionersv.Santos RIVERA al. No. 85-224. Argued March 31, 1986. Decided June 27, Syllabus Respondents, eight Chicano individuals, attended a party at the home of two respondents. A large number officers petitioner city's police force, acting without warrant, broke up by using tear gas and unnecessary physical many guests, including four respondents, were arrested. Criminal charges ultimately dismissed. Respondents filed suit in Federal District Court against city, its Chief Police, 30 individual under various federal Civil Rights Acts, alleging violations respondents' First, Fourth, Fourteenth Amendment rights as well numerous state-law claims. Ultimately jury returned 37 verdicts favor respondents city five officers, finding 11 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 4 instances false arrest imprisonment, 22 negligence. awarded $33,350 compensatory punitive damages. They also sought attorney's fees Attorney's Fees Awards Act 1976, 1988, amount $245,456.25, based on 1,946.75 hours expended their attorneys $125 per hour 84.5 law clerks $25 hour. Finding both rates reasonable, requested amount, Appeals affirmed. This remanded for reconsideration light intervening decision Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 424, 103 1933, 76 40, Court, after additional hearings review matter, made extensive findings fact conclusions law, again concluded that entitled to an award fees. The affirmed, ruling, inter alia, fee was not excessive merely because it exceeded damages jury. Held: judgment is 763 F.2d 1580, Justice BRENNAN, joined MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, that: 1 1. Under supra, which announced certain guidelines calculating "reasonable" "lodestar" figure, obtained multiplying reasonably litigation reasonable hourly rate, presumed be contemplated important factor, among others, consideration adjusting lodestar figure upward or downward "results obtained." Where plaintiff has excellent results, his attorney should recover fully fee, reduced simply failed prevail every contention raised lawsuit. record here establishes correctly applied factors did abuse discretion awarding all time spent litigating case. Pp. 567-573. 2 2. There no merit argument Hensley's approach inappropriate civil cases where recovers only monetary damages, that, such cases, excess recovered are necessarily unreasonable. Although relevant one court consider 573-580. 3 (a) action does constitute private tort benefiting plaintiffs whose violated. Unlike most litigants, seeks vindicate constitutional cannot valued solely terms. Because awards do reflect public benefit advanced litigation, Congress intend unlike depend obtaining substantial relief, but instead recognized 1988 conditioned upon need proportionate money 574-576. (b) rule limiting proportion would seriously undermine Congress' purpose enacting 1988. enacted specifically found market legal services provide victims with effective access judicial process. proportionality make difficult, if impossible, individuals meritorious claims relatively small potential obtain redress from courts, totally inconsistent ensuring sufficiently vigorous enforcement rights. In order ensure lawyers willing represent persons legitimate grievances, determined necessary compensate 576-580. 5 3. statutory produce "windfalls" attorneys, neither might recover. Rather, there already exists wide range safeguards designed protect defendants possibility awards, adequately "windfall" attorneys. 581-586. 6 POWELL Court's detailed concerning award, accepted Appeals, "clearly erroneous" purposes Rule Procedure 52(a), making award. decisions this nor legislative history support between case, rejected prevailing contingent rate charged counsel personal injury considered 7 J., delivered opinion, JJ., joined. POWELL, opinion concurring judgment, post, p. 581. BURGER, C.J., dissenting 587. REHNQUIST, WHITE O'CONNOR, joined, 588. 8 Jonathan Kotler, Walnut Creek, Cal., petitioners. 9 Gerald P. Lopez, 10 BRENNAN STEVENS join. issue presented case whether se "unreasonable" within meaning statute exceeds underlying action. 12 * evening August 1, 1975, Riverside, California, Santos Jennie Rivera. unidentified and, "unnecessary force." Many later "[t]he creating disturbance community break-in." App. 188. arrestees dismissed lack probable cause. 13 On 4, sued §§ 1981, 1985(3), 1986 allegedly violating complaint, alleged claims, declaratory injunctive relief. 5, 1977, 23 moved summary judgment; granted 17 these officers. remaining proceeded trial September 1980. total damages: $13,300 $20,050 claims.1 14 costs compensation hour, $245,456.25. $245,456.25 request expenses, multiplier nature success high quality attorneys' efforts. 15 Petitioners appealed Ninth Circuit Rivera City 679 795 (1982). writ certiorari Court. We writ, vacated Appeals' 40 (1983). 952, 2421, 77 1310 remand, held hearings, reviewed briefing, reexamined whole. fees, same rates.2 denied expenses multiplier. 16 And again, "the district reconsidered Hensley. . ." 1582 (1985). three arguments petitioners' have been compensated other than those prevailed. Emphasizing had "spent unrelated successful claims," ibid., supports court's plaintiffs' involve 'common core facts' related theories." Ibid. observed consistent Hensley, "considered degree [achieved attorneys] relationship extent award." F.2d, 1582. Second, Examining proposition may exceed plaintiff. Finally, "extensive law" belied claim determine justified. concluded: "In short, criteria justify explained reasons clearly concisely. As required discussed awarded. court." Id., 1583 (citation omitted). 18 disproportionate 474 917, 244, 88 253 (1985), now affirm Appeals. II A. 19 Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Wilderness Society, 421 240, 95 1612, 44 141 (1975), reaffirmed "American Rule" least absent express authorization contrary, each lawsuit ordinarily shall bear own response Alyeska, authorized courts parties specified litigation. While itself explain what constitutes House Senate Reports accompanying expressly endorse analysis set forth Johnson Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 714 (CA5 1974). See S.Rep. 94-1011, (1976) (hereafter Report); H.R. Rep. 94-1558, Report) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5908. identifies fee.3 20 stated useful starting point determining multiplied rate." 433, S.Ct., 1939. commonly referred "lodestar," cautioned exclude initial calculation 'reasonably expended' " 434, 1939-1940 (quoting Report, 6). 21 then considerations lead adjust downward, "important factor 'results obtained.' U.S., 1939-1940. noted succeeded some unsuccessful appropriate. situations, judge plaintiff's he succeeded, achieved level makes appropriate claims: [some] relief will common facts theories. Much counsel's devoted generally whole, difficult divide claim-by-claim basis. Such viewed series discrete Instead focus significance overall relation litigation." 435, 1940. Accordingly, emphasized "[w]here fee," lawsuit." B argue properly follow disagree. carefully results pursuant instructions conducting reflected sound circumstances." 190.4 performances them rates, even though they young when began. Johnson, 718-719 ("If demonstrates skill ability, penalized recently being admitted bar"). 24 account prevailed defendants. first "it never actually clear officer until we gotten through whole trial," 236, so "[u]nder circumstances initially name thirty-one Riverside action." remarked: 25 "I think you look success. problem about who responsible way Some couldn't agree surprising would, my wrong join since yourself know precisely responsible." 235-236. 26 could "be 1940: 27 "All facts. closely prevail. separated prevail." 189. 28 recovered, size imply limited: 29 "[T]he resulted general reluctance jurors dignified restraint exercised describing injuries For example, although actions insulting humiliating insensitive person were, intentionally so, attempt play aspect case." 188-189.5 paid particular attention "presented complex interrelated issues law," id., 187, "[a] advance interest," 191: 31 "Counsel served interest vindicating Defendants engaged lawless, unconstitutional conduct, remedy defendants' misconduct. Indeed, shocked acts convinced testimony motivated hostility area incident occurred. serve interests vindication rights." 190. 32 "focus[ed] [respondents] "achieved proper basis award," 192: 33 clients, accomplishment outstanding. 34 Based our record, erroneous. conclude case.6 III 35 Petitioners, United States amicus curiae, maintain goes, use result therefore Likening actions, petitioners submit recovers. Specifically, suggest modeled contingent-fee arrangements used assuming 33% contingency entitle approximately $11,000 36 certainly 718. It is, however, reject notion nothing more Carey Piphus, 435 247, 266, 98 1042, 1053-1055, 55 252 (1978). And, conferred statutes enumerated over above value 444, n. 1945, (BRENNAN, part part). Regardless form obtains, often secures social benefits nominal awards. unlawful "motivated community," 190, interest: 38 "The institutional behavior involved stopped short having like it. [T]he improper motivation appeared seemed me pervaded very broad segment department." 237.7 39 addition, contributes significantly deterrence future. McCann Coughlin, 698 112, 129 (CA2 1983). deterrent effect particularly evident misconduct, unavailable. obtains 'does himself alone 'private general,' policy highest importance.' Newman Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 400, 402, 964, 966, 1263 (1968)). "If citizen resources, day him; congressional assert goes unvindicated; entire Nation, just citizen, suffers." 122 Cong.Rec. 33313 (remarks Sen. Tunney). 41 "intended [§ 1988] governed standards types equally antitrust nonpecuniary nature." 6, 5913 (emphasis added). "[C]ounsel paid, traditional fee-paying client, 'for matter. ' Van Davis County Los Angeles, EPD ¶ 9444 (CD Cal.1974) added)). Report approves Stanford Daily Zurcher, 64 F.R.D. 680 (ND Cal.1974); supra; Swann Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board Education, 66 483 (WDNC 1975). received despite Thus, lower eschewed requirement.8 limits These afford purchase market. ("Because vast majority counsel, unable present courts"); 2, 5910 ("In arising laws, must sue enforce little hire lawyer"); see 35127 Holtzman) ("Plaintiffs suffer discrimination infringements usually wealthy people"); 35128 Seiberling) ("Most Americans lawyer violated illegal discrimination"); 31832 Hathaway) ("[R]ight policies vital financial resources able promote them"). Moreover, available encourage accept frequently expenditures effort recoveries. states: 43 "[W]hile theoretically covered 1988], immunity doctrines special defenses, officials, preclude severely limit damage remedy. Consequently, protected." 9. added; footnote Cong.Rec., 33314 Kennedy) ("[C]ivil cases—unlike cases—do recovery can pay lawyer"). enable laws stake otherwise feasible so: 45 "[F]ee proved essential citizens meaningful opportunity Congressional contain. 46 ". If rights, violate Nation's fundamental proceed impunity, 5910. 47 Kerr Quinn, 692 875, 877 1982) ("The function bringing abandoned imperatives surrounding hiring competent counsel"). 48 courts. private-sector inadequate case.9 49 illustrates why entrusted arrangements. "[g]iven type defense presented, reluctant institute continue prosecute concluded, moreover, "[c]ounsel Nevertheless, fraction actual low pecuniary vindicate, highly unlikely prospect equal sufficient attract counsel.10 economically expend litigate properly, less likely here. rely arrangements, grievances. reason IV 50 intended "adequate windfalls attorneys." 5913. However, find evidence avoid "windfalls attorneys," Both identify ibid.; 8; deny circumstances, 429, 1937 (citing 4), frivolous vexatious Christiansburg Garment EEOC, 434 412, 416-417, 694, 697-698, 54 648 (1978); Hughes Rowe, 449 14-16, 101 173, 178-179, 163 (1980) (per curiam ); 6-7. Furthermore, defendant liable incurred pretrial settlement offer, offer. Marek Chesny, 473 105 3012, 87 (1985).11 believe 51 absence any indication adopt strict decline ourselves.12 hereby 52 Affirmed. 53 judgment. I plurality reads (1983), expansively decide affirmance—quite simply—is fact, approved face, seems But below. views, summarize warrants, forcibly entered residence attending arrested them. lodged arrested, instituted addition complaint preliminary permanent injunctions force prevent further "discriminatory harassment" Mexican Americans. At proceedings, January 10, 1978, Following discovery, finally went 16, After nine days trial, seven deliberations, 56 violations. committed common-law negligence, arrest, imprisonment. $20,050, $33,350. Their lawyers, practice years, claimed each, petitioners, times 57 full amount.1 appeal, challenged May certiorari, supra. heard oral "reconsidered memoranda, affidavits, exhibits previously parties, whole." Pet. Cert. 2-2. That explicit following award: 58 59 demonstrated outstanding experience handling 60 "[M]any 61 4. "fair reasonable." 62 5. 63 6. Counsel "also 7. "hourly [of is] typical similar comparable skill, reputation Central performed." 65 8. view attained [is] 2-6 2-10. 52(a) provides "[f]indings [by court] aside unless disagree foregoing hold Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 1504, 84 518 To sure, fairly matters critical judgments below objective REHNQUIST's dissent mistaken. But, "a reviewing [may not] reverse trier decided differently." 573, 1511. 67 comment briefly principal emphasize true unsuccessful. teaches, "lawsuit consists won raised." 440, 1943. Here, Judge presided throughout protracted rested "common facts," Since premised episode, significant variation supporting several concerned participation officers.2 offer persuasive question 2-7. 68 Neither "rule." infinitely variable. course, [in final determination awards] 436, 1941. court, fixing obligated give primary compared sought. recovered. "public interest" jury's verdict warrantless entry lawless unconstitutional. Fourth violation hardly new asserted right interest, awarded.3 put it, allegations misconduct area. 2-8. contained racial slurs police. 69 contend cases. customary long before existing thought adequate incentive unpopular analogy unpersuasive context. Cf. Memphis Community School Dist. Stachura, 299, 2537, 249 (1986). 70 sum, serious doubts fairness erroneous, abused award.4 71 dissenting. 72 opinion. write add better example nonsense 73 receiving nearly quarter-million-dollar graduated school 1973 1974; brought professional began consisted Lopez' 1-year service clerk Roy Cazares' years' Defenders' Program San Diego County. reasonable. 74 Can anyone doubt ever dreamed paying novice which, considering inflation, perhaps something $250 today? REHNQUIST points out, ----, litigant $17,875 preparation order? plainly grave Court—particularly identical previously—rather affirming either "abuse discretion." ante, 572-573. unfortunately fuel fires indignation 75 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, WHITE, O'CONNOR join, leading dealing said foreseen us, 1939, quoting (1976). Today, adoption revisionist interpretation nonetheless acknowledges "Hensley requires applicant exercise 'billing judgment' seek Ante, 569, original). escape conclusion "reasonably" reversed. affirmance emasculates principles laid down turns into lawyers. brief reveals how spend much seeking 256 separate out breakup single party. Prior motions dropped requests More significantly, original allegation acted discriminatory intent. completely exonerated negligence No restraining orders issued compelled change suit. Only one-third total, $13,300, 78 $495,713.51 representing April declining apply "multiplier," awarding, penny, vacated, remanded, convened hearing, promptly announced: tell go back specific it." 230. word. submissions second exactly before: noticeable around, created "paper trail" discussion 1974), believed supported huge 187-192. 1580 79 obvious constraint discretion, blueprint justifying, after-the-fact fashion, enter "lodestar." almost turn kind "billing judgment," obtained," described factor" few examples suffice: (1) 209 "prelitigation time," $26,118.75. (2) 197 conversations $24,625. (3) 143 order, $17,875. (4) Perhaps egregiously, 45.50 "stand-by Diego, wait Angeles hotel room rendered co-counsel employed U.C.L.A. Law, minutes' driving courthouse. time" totaled $5,687.50. hard understand judgment" spending amounts worth 80 statements reluctantly attempted felt wrongfully withheld apparently believing observation fees: 81 188-189. 82 sit retry questions submitted life plaintiffs, defendants, live with, business trying correct regards unfortunate tendency granting inflated 83 extraordinary billing practices profession, principle means deemed billed affluent latter stressed (1976),* Hensley: good-faith excessive, redundant, unnecessary, ethically submission. 'In sector, component setting. Hours one's client adversary authority.' 1940, Copeland Marshall, 205 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 401, 641 880, 891 (en banc) 85 analysis, appears nowhere plurality's leads inexorably 86 Suppose offers sell Blackacre $10,000. known fair consults convey good title Blackacre. writes elaborate memorandum concluding A's defective, submits bill $25,000. refuses bill, sues, stipulate 200 researching extraordinarily factual situation, billed, $125. Does $25,000 claims? Surely start attorney, piece property $10,000 property. Otherwise far off going place, giving worthless deed. thereby saved $15,000. Obviously situation litigated bedrock defective claim, surely applicable. contract B, retains unjustifiable, arrangement, send "unreasonable," regardless take-nothing prospective limited, enables achieve settlement; prosecuting defending $10,000, realize defendant's attorney. All illuminate "reasonableness" depend, extent, expected prevails. course predict measure computing fee. Again, hypothetical illustrate point. If, California widely publicized survey showed $75,000 possibly $245,000? survey, accurately estimate absolve responsibility guide judgment." 89 context obviously exceptions rules discussing, none applicable unnecessarily prolonged bad-faith conduct produces significant, identifiable authorizing allow larger plaintiffs. Nor deal 1053-1054, (1978), deprivation (fee "not nature"). successfully Amendments, assessed juries shares aspects suggests, Part divorced 90 plurality, III, 573-574, explains position this, "reject recovers." 574. importation model govern warranted terms statute. "proportionality" described. Nearly 2,000 attorney-hours $33,000, expressed typically expenditure time. snippets relies dismiss wholly unconvincing. One glowing rhetoric noble loose possible prepare try minor "complex involving challenges conditions" require "many lawyers' services," thus cry remand recomputation pursued bottom line ask obey law. virtually always think, says future assume abide Constitution." 219. explanation significant: "[I]f asked [injunctive relief] telling want behavior, was—it injunction." "rate performed," clerks, are: labor required; novelty difficulty questions; requisite perform properly; preclusion employment due acceptance case; (5) fee; (6) fixed contingent; (7) limitations imposed circumstances; (8) obtained; (9) experience, reputation, ability attorneys; (10) "undesirability" (11) length client; (12) 717-719. "exercise respect worked." 437, misreads mandate unnecessary. did, recommended "maintain records manner distinct claims." appear shared view. event, while disputed precise worked time, lapse unimportant, interrelated. hearing tried figured main bring readily cities. don't answer verdicts. absolutely complete." 235. obtained, identified including: presented; undesirability With "reasonable." Brief 12-13. considered, rejected, arguments. object preparing according "were subsequently mostly discarded 12. instructions. 215. Similarly, conversation noted: haven't got probably took 250 them." best "would 219; DeFilippo Morizio, 759 231, 235 1985); Ramos Lamm, 713 546, 557 (CA10 1983); 128-129 Jones MacMillan Bloedel Containers, 685 238-239 (CA8 1982); Basiardanes Galveston, 682 1203, 1220 Furtado Bishop, 635 915, 917-918 (CA1 1980); Coop South Bend, 652, 655 (CA7 Perez University Puerto Rico, 600 1979); Walston Board, 566 1201, 1204-1205 (CA4 1977). Of mean comparisons irrelevant calculations suggested lawyer's services, representations comparisons." Blum Stenson, 465 886, 896, 11, 104 1541, 1547, (1984). indicated submission." private-market irrelevant, suggests recovering (assuming 33%) Amicus Curiae 22-23. "[t]here avoided putting 238. States' suggestion working $5.65 years work began, "likely 23. liability bulk themselves timely manner. deliberating made, noted, "well [respondents' counsel] thousands dollars trial. 237-238. government tenaciously complain response." 414, 904 banc). note urged amend prohibit e.g., Legal Equity Act, S. 2802, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. (1984); 99th 1st efforts persuasive. refuse double alert basis, included too peripheral substantive complaint. originally named, prior cleared verdict. five—a sued—were liable. difference named raise grounds suing Overstating inflation billable requested. (thirty chief police)." 2-4. rare disproportionality III-B emphasizes assure availability decade ago. tables Annual Director Administrative Office respect, increased filings Monroe Pape, 365 167, 473, 492 (1961), 1983 continued accelerated 1976. 1985 284-299 (identifying category "civil rights" state prisoner petitions, cases). serving generous empirical study aggrieved 1976 licensed 396,000, Employment Earnings 8, Table Dept. Labor, Bureau Labor Statistics (1977), estimated 675,000, B. Curran, Lawyer Statistical matter.' (1976), Admin.News, added), 680, 684 Cal.1974).

Category: 5