Opinion ID: 4027535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fee Enhancement

Text: Appellants requested a 10% fee enhancement, which was denied. We conclude that the denial was not an abuse of discretion. Fee “enhancements may be awarded in ‘rare’ and ‘exceptional’ circumstances.” Perdue, 559 U.S. at 552 (citations omitted). Appellants bear the burden of producing specific evidence that they are entitled to the fee enhancement. Id. at 553. Here, Appellants present no viable arguments for why this is a rare or exceptional circumstance. Nor do they present sufficient specific evidence demonstrating that they are entitled to a fee enhancement. First, Appellants assert that their counsel bills below market rate, but those concerns are already addressed through the lodestar method, which calculates fees based on the prevailing market rate. Binta B. ex rel. S.A., 710 F.3d at 627 (citing Missouri v. Jenkins by 17 No. 15-1449, H.D.V. - Greektown, LLC v. City of Detroit Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 285–86 (1989)). A fee enhancement may be appropriate when the prevailing market rate fails to afford adequate compensation. See Perdue, 559 U.S. at 554–55 (“[A]n enhancement may be appropriate where the method used in determining the hourly rate employed in the lodestar calculation does not adequately measure the attorney’s true market value.”). Appellants have not shown that this is the case. Second, Appellants argue that they obtained superior results. Although there are a few circumstances in which superior results would justify a fee enhancement, the Supreme Court has noted that those “circumstances are indeed ‘rare’ and ‘exceptional,’ and require specific evidence that the lodestar fee would not have been ‘adequate to attract competent counsel.’” Id. at 554 (citation omitted). Appellants have not made that showing here. Finally, Appellants’ argue that the case was undesirable because it involved an adult entertainment business, but they offer no evidence that counsel representing adult entertainment businesses are subject to any undue pressure on their ability to obtain clients or adequate compensation for their work in representing them. As it is Appellants’ burden to produce specific evidence, this argument fails because they do not substantiate it. Cf. Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 746 (6th Cir. 2005) (affirming a fee enhancement based, in part, on two affidavits from attorneys attesting that the case was highly controversial). For all these reasons, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in declining to award a fee enhancement.