Source: http://openjurist.org/107/f3d/223/smith-96-1370-v-philadelphia-housing-authority
Timestamp: 2013-12-08 15:27:39
Document Index: 487784412

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1988', '§ 1983', '§ 1437', '§ 966', '§ 1988', '§ 1988']

107 F3d 223 Smith 96-1370 v. Philadelphia Housing Authority | OpenJurist
107 F. 3d 223 - Smith 96-1370 v. Philadelphia Housing Authority	Home107 f3d 223 smith 96-1370 v. philadelphia housing authority
107 F3d 223 Smith 96-1370 v. Philadelphia Housing Authority 107 F.3d 223
Vernita SMITH, Appellant No. 96-1370,v.PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY; Larghne Lahm; JohnVarallo; Claude Ross.Carmen RIVERA, Appellant No. 96-1379,v.PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY; Anthony Holland; JohnVarallo; Claude Ross.
Nos. 96-1370, 96-1379.
Argued Jan. 10, 1997.Decided Feb. 26, 1997.
Michael Donahue, Harold I. Goodman (argued), Community Legal Services, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellants.
M. Kevin Hubbard (argued), Philadelphia Housing Authority, Philadelphia, PA, for Appellees.
BEFORE: COWEN, ALITO and ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs in this consolidated appeal contest the amount of attorney's fees awarded by the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Specifically, they contend that the district court erred in finding $150 to be the reasonable hourly rate for the services provided by their attorney, rather than the $210 per hour rate they requested. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the judgments of the district court and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs Vernita Smith and Carmen Rivera are indigent tenants of defendant Philadelphia Housing Authority ("PHA"). Each commenced an action in the district court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the United States Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1437 et seq., in order to enforce administrative grievance awards previously issued in their favor pursuant to 24 C.F.R. §§ 966.50-.57. Smith's award required the PHA to make certain repairs to her rental unit. Rivera's award provided for a rent abatement and a rollback of a rent increase imposed by the PHA. Both Smith and Rivera were represented by Michael Donahue, Esq., of Community Legal Services ("CLS") of Philadelphia. It is not disputed that Smith and Rivera were each a "prevailing party" in their respective lawsuits, within the meaning of § 1988.
Plaintiffs petitioned the court for attorney's fees pursuant to § 1988, requesting an hourly rate of $210. In support of their petitions, plaintiffs each submitted two affidavits, one from Donahue and one from Lorrie McKinley. McKinley is Project Head of the Employment Law Project at CLS and Chair of the CLS Attorneys Fees Committee, which establishes the usual billing rates for CLS counsel. Donahue's affidavit noted that he has been a member of the federal bar since 1978, and has litigated over 200 cases involving the federal housing regulations, including ten class actions and four successful appeals in this Court.1 Donahue averred that $210 per hour is a reasonable market rate for the services he rendered.
McKinley's affidavit stated that she has been practicing law since 1984 and is familiar with the market rates for civil rights attorneys in the Philadelphia area. It stated that Donahue's usual hourly rate is $210, and that this rate is consistent with the rates for attorneys of similar experience and skill