Opinion ID: 626070
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: lrsd

Text: LRSD seeks attorney's fees for the two attorneys who prosecuted its appeal of the termination of state funding. According to LRSD's detailed affidavits, attorney Christopher Heller devoted 228.5 hours to the appeal. LRSD seeks compensation for those hours at Mr. Heller's typical billing rate of $300 per hour, although it has long been [his] practice to represent LRSD at a reduced rate and, in fact, he charged LRSD $200 per hour for his work in this case. In addition, attorney Clay Fendley devoted 151.3 hours to the appeal. LRSD seeks compensation for those hours at Mr. Fendley's typical billing rate of $160 per hour, although he customarily represents public entities at a reduced rate and, in fact, charged LRSD $120 per hour for his work in this case. Finally, LRSD also seeks $1,421.66 in copying costs, filing fees, and expenses associated with Mr. Heller's attendance at oral argument plus $152.50 in expenses associated with Mr. Fendley's attendance at oral argument. LRSD thus seeks $94,332 in total fees and costs. In opposition, the State first contends that the award of attorney's fees should be reduced by a large percentage because LRSD achieved only partial or limited success. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 436, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (If ... a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount.). The State suggests that LRSD prevailed only in a limited fashion on appeal because we held solely that funding from the State could not be terminated without notice and a formal hearing. See Little Rock Sch. Dist., 664 F.3d at 758. We agree that some reduction is warranted because LRSD did not obtain its sought-after result, a holding on the merits that continued funding from the State is justified under current circumstances. Nevertheless, our stay and then vacatur of an order that would have eliminated about $38 million from LRSD's funding for the current school year is a significant result. We hold that a reduction of twenty-five percent from the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation times a reasonable hourly rate is appropriate in these circumstances. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436, 103 S.Ct. 1933. In a related argument, the State contends that LRSD should not receive fees for billed hours attributable to arguing the merits of terminating the funding because we did not reach the merits. However, [l]itigants in good faith may raise alternative legal grounds for a desired outcome, and the court's rejection of or failure to reach certain grounds is not a sufficient reason for reducing a fee. The result is what matters. Id. at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933. Accordingly, we hold that no additional reduction on this ground is necessary. The State next argues that the 380-hour total billed is excessive for this appeal and implies duplicative or unnecessary work. While it is a large total, we note that, in order to argue the merits of continued state funding, LRSD had to research and brief the State's history of performance of its desegregation obligations throughout this entire thirty-year case. Although we did not reach the merits in our opinion, LRSD could not assume with certainty that we would not. Thus, we cannot say it was unreasonable for LRSD's attorneys to bill 380 hours of work for this appeal. The State also contends in particular that the ten hours billed and $152.50 in expenses associated with Mr. Fendley's travel to attend oral argument are unreasonable because he did not present oral argument. We disagree. In a case of this complexity and magnitude, it was not unreasonable for LRSD to send two attorneys to attend oral argument. In its penultimate challenge, the State notes that LRSD is attempting to recover fees for work associated with LRSD's motion in the district court for a stay pending appeal. We typically determine fees only for services rendered in this Court and allow the district court to determine the proper compensation for services rendered before it. Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137, 138 (8th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Although the individual billing records are not entirely clear as to the number of hours attributable solely to the attempt to obtain a stay in the district court, it appears reasonable to delete six hours from Mr. Fendley's billing total and two hours from Mr. Heller's billing total as representing services not performed in this Court. Finally, the State argues that LRSD should receive fees at the hourly rate actually charged by its attorneys, rather than at their nominal billing rate. LRSD counters, accurately, that we have in the past awarded fees at the full nominal billing rate despite the attorneys' reduced fee arrangement with LRSD. See Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Arkansas, 127 F.3d 693, 697-98 (8th Cir.1997). Neither the actual fee arrangement nor our past practice controls the award in this case, however. As the Supreme Court has explained: [Section 1988] contemplates reasonable compensation, in light of all of the circumstances, for the time and effort expended by the attorney for the prevailing plaintiff, no more and no less. Should a fee agreement provide less than a reasonable fee calculated in this manner, the defendant should nevertheless be required to pay the higher amount. Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 93, 109 S.Ct. 939, 103 L.Ed.2d 67 (1989). A reasonable hourly rate generally means the ordinary fee `for similar work in the community.' Avalon Cinema, 689 F.2d at 140 (quoting Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 718 (5th Cir. 1974)). LRSD's affidavits state that Mr. Heller's and Mr. Fendley's nominal rates are reasonable for the Little Rock area in light of their respective experience and the type of services rendered. The State does not challenge this representation, but instead attempts to characterize any award beyond the rates actually charged as an enhanced award, disfavored under Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, ____ U.S. ____, 130 S.Ct. 1662, 176 L.Ed.2d 494 (2010): Section 1988 serves an important public purpose by making it possible for persons without means to bring suit to vindicate their rights. But unjustified enhancements that serve only to enrich attorneys are not consistent with the statute's aim. In many cases, attorney's fees awarded under § 1988 are not paid by the individuals responsible for the constitutional or statutory violations on which the judgment is based. Instead, the fees are paid in effect by state and local taxpayers, and because state and local governments have limited budgets, money that is used to pay attorney's fees is money that cannot be used for programs that provide vital public services. Id. at 1676-77. However, Perdue makes clear that the enhancement at issue was an enhancement to the traditionally calculated reasonable fee, as distinguished from rates initially set in a fee agreement. See id. at 1675. To be sure, it appears that LRSD's attorneys prosecuted this appeal at reduced hourly rates not to enable persons without means to bring suit to vindicate their rights, but rather under a longstanding client discount. Nevertheless, Perdue does not overturn the Supreme Court's earlier holding that, [s]hould a fee agreement provide less than a reasonable fee ..., the defendant should nevertheless be required to pay the higher amount. Blanchard, 489 U.S. at 93, 109 S.Ct. 939. Because the State does not directly challenge LRSD's affidavits as to the reasonableness of Mr. Heller's and Mr. Fendley's nominal rates for the Little Rock area in light of their respective experience and the type of services rendered, we award fees at their nominal hourly rates. The resulting award to LRSD from the State is 226.5 hours billed by Mr. Heller at $300 per hour and 145.3 hours billed by Mr. Fendley at $160 per hour, for an intermediate total of $92,772.16, reduced by twenty-five percent to $68,398.50, plus $1,574.16 in costs, for an award amount of $69,972.66.