Case Name: Myrna UNDERWOOD, Sheila Fazande, Annie Johnson, Jerome Smith, Cora Ewers, Frances Jardin, Lura R. Stentz, Charlotte West, Aritisha McGee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Samuel R. PIERCE, Jr., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1986-10-15
Citations: 802 F.2d 1107
Docket Number: No. 83-5773
Parties: Myrna UNDERWOOD, Sheila Fazande, Annie Johnson, Jerome Smith, Cora Ewers, Frances Jardin, Lura R. Stentz, Charlotte West, Aritisha McGee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Samuel R. PIERCE, Jr., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 802
Pages: 1107–1107

Head Matter:
Myrna UNDERWOOD, Sheila Fazande, Annie Johnson, Jerome Smith, Cora Ewers, Frances Jardin, Lura R. Stentz, Charlotte West, Aritisha McGee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Samuel R. PIERCE, Jr., Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 83-5773.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Oct. 15, 1986.
Mary S. Burdick, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Inc., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellees.
James R. Madison, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, San Francisco, Cal., for amicus curiae.
Sheila Lieber, Robert Greenspan, Merril Hirsh, Attys., U.S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.
Before HUG and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and CARROLL , District Judge.
The Honorable Earl H. Carroll, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
ORDER
The opinion appearing at 761 F.2d 1342 is amended as follows: Section VI, commencing on page 1347, is modified by retaining the first paragraph, eliminating the remainder of the section, and substituting the following:
The Supreme Court recently has expressed caution as to the use of multipliers in calculating reasonable attorneys' fees. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3096-3100, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). We need not decide in this case whether the use of a multiplier is permissible under the statutory language of the EAJA or under the recent Supreme Court authority. We conclude that compensation for the special factors involved in this case was adequately provided for by the allowance of the hourly rates in excess of the $75.00 specified in the statute.