Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2014/OR/PLN_v_ColumbiaFeesOrder/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:19:56+00:00

Document:
(deceased), Ransom Blackman, LLP, 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Suite 1400, Portland, OR 97204.
Steven A. Kraemer, Kari A. Furnanz, and Gregory R. Roberson, Hart Wagner, LLP, 1000 S.W.
Broadway, 20th Floor, Portland, OR 97205. Of Attorneys for Defendants.
follow, the Court awards PLN $763,803.45 in attorney’s fees and $38,373.01 in expenses.
prevailing party its reasonable attorney’s fees as part of costs. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); A.D. v. Cal.
determination” in order to allow for “adequate appellate review.” Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel.
Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 558 (2010).
The preferred method of calculating reasonable attorney’s fees is the “lodestar” method.
calculating attorney’s fees yields a fee that is presumptively sufficient to achieve this objective.
adjusted in certain circumstances. Id.
obtained, the novelty and complexity of a case, and the special skill and experience of counsel.
It is “well established that time spent in preparing fee applications” is also compensable.
Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1210 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Anderson v.
Director, OWCP, 91 F.3d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1996) (quotation marks omitted)).
it has requested [is] reasonable.” Gonzalez, 729 F.3d at 1202.
original) (quoting Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008)).
award cannot be denied on this basis.”).
Id. (alteration and emphasis in original).
reputation of the attorneys or paralegals involved. Id.
Prison Legal News v. Columbia County, No. 3:12-cv-00071-SI (ECF 229-2 and ECF 231-2).
expenditure of time on a case [is not] commensurate with the fees to which he is entitled”).
Plaintiff initially requested $826,313 in attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. ECF 221.
Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs. ECF 270 at 5; ECF 270-2.
adjustment to its lodestar amount.
consider in determining reasonable attorney’s fees. See In re Bluetooth Headset Prods. Liab.
Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 942 n.7 (9th Cir. 2011).
page, even if the document’s internal pagination may differ.
was issued,” which Defendants calculate to be $710,608.50. ECF 244 at 8-9.
fees, and costs after Defendants agreed to stipulate to a permanent injunction and consent decree.
precedent established by a court finding in future instances.
favorable” than the Rule 68 offer that did not include the injunctive relief obtained); Reiter v.
erroneous and failed to “appreciate the significance of equitable relief in civil rights litigation”).
is included, this is not even a close question. Defendants’ argument under Rule 68 is rejected.
$200,000 in fees. Id. at 1102. The defendants appealed.
compensatory fee award despite limited success on damages claims.” Id. at 1105.
injunctive relief or a consent decree, Plaintiff was required to proceed to trial to obtain that relief.
accrue to others in the future in light of the permanent nature of the injunction.
injunctive and declaratory relief, in addition to its modest amount of stipulated money damages.
Moreno, 534 F.3d at 1112. The Court so exercises its discretion here.
ECF 223 at 8 (Declaration of Jesse Wing).
Robert Meyer (ECF 230), Daniel H. Skerrit (ECF 231), Dana L. Sullivan (ECF 232), and Eric D.
of experience. The hourly rate listed for 2007 is $495.
(ECF 249), and William Blair (ECF 248).
experience is $399, which is essentially $400.
may understate a fair rate in other cases. See Markowitz Decl., at ¶¶ 6-7.
average for Chamberlain ($300 versus $269), and below average for Hull ($210 versus $269).
overlap in the plaintiff’s counsel in that case with Plaintiff’s counsel here.
litigation, especially in the context of free speech rights under the First Amendment.
for attorney’s fees. Defendants’ objections are addressed in turn.
excessive. ECF 244 at 21. The Complaint in this case was filed on January 13, 2012. ECF 1.
believed [Defendants’] policies were unconstitutional.” Id. at 21.
among attorneys,” and Defendants identify approximately 16 hours of such conferences.
Court’s ten percent “haircut,” the Court concludes that Defendants’ argument is unpersuasive.
“haircut,” the Court concludes that Defendants’ argument is unpersuasive.
time records are to be commended, and Defendants’ argument is without merit.
Plaintiff requests $38,373.01 in litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
ECF 221; ECF 223 at 8; ECF 223-13; ECF 224 at 6; ECF 224-6; and ECF 225-2 at 15-16.
costs requested by Plaintiff are not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or 28 U.S.C. § 1821.
reasonable attorney’s fee under an expense-shifting statute, such as 42 U.S.C. §1988.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Instead, PLN invokes the express statutory authority of 42 U.S.C.
expenses would be recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
under a statute allowing for a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs, such as 42 U.S.C.
Thus, Defendants’ arguments that Plaintiff failed to file a bill of costs under 28 U.S.C.
Plaintiff’s motion for award of attorney’s fees and expenses (ECF 221) is granted in part.
DATED this 24th day of March, 2014.

References: § 1988
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 1988
 v.

 § 1988
 § 1920
 § 1821
 §1988
 § 1920
 § 1920