Opinion ID: 2801829
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pro Rata Reduction of Pretrial and Trial Fees.

Text: The district court next reduced the amount of remaining fees by three-quarters to reflect the fact that Ryan succeeded on only one of the four claims asserted in her complaint. Again, we find that the district court erred by applying such a mechanical approach to reducing Ryan’s requested fees. Apportionment of fees on a pro rata basis may be appropriate in limited circumstances. See Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1157–58 (9th Cir. 2002). In most cases, however, such apportionment fails to adequately ensure that the fees awarded actually represent the fees associated with the successful claims. Cf. Harris v. Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct., 631 F.3d 963, 972 (9th Cir. 2011). Pro rata apportionment is particularly ineffective in a case, such as this one, where the various claims asserted involve a common set of facts and issues. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437–39. The district court did not explain how a pro rata reduction would appropriately reduce the fee award to account for Ryan’s limited success in the action without unfairly eliminating fees reasonably incurred in connection with her contributory infringement claim. 20 RYAN V. EDITIONS LTD. WEST Given the highly interrelated nature of Ryan’s claims, a pro rata reduction of fees was inappropriate. On remand, the district court has discretion to select an adequate method for reducing Ryan’s requested fees that balances Ryan’s entitlement to fees as the prevailing party with her limited success in the litigation as a whole. 3. Twenty-Percent Reduction for Block Billing and Interest. Finally, the district court reduced the remaining amount of pretrial and trial phase fees by an additional twenty percent, explaining that the reduction was meant to account for “block-billing and interest improperly claimed before the fee amounts were certain and vested.” It was within the district court’s discretion to reduce the requested fee amount to account for the potential inflation of hours that may result from block billing and to account for any improperly claimed interest. Welch, 480 F.3d at 948. But, the district court provided no explanation for the determination that twenty percent was the appropriate amount to deduct, and failed to account for the fact that many of the entries in Ryan’s billing log were not billed in block format. Absent such explanation, we are unable to adequately review or sustain the district court’s action. Id. (unexplained, blanket reduction for block billing inappropriate where not all time entries were billed in block format); see also Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096, 1111 (9th Cir. 2014) (specific explanation required for reduction over ten percent). Therefore, we vacate the district court’s across-the-board twenty-percent reduction. On remand, the district court may reduce the requested fee amount to account for block billing RYAN V. EDITIONS LTD. WEST 21 and improperly claimed interest, but it must “‘explain how or why . . . the reduction . . . fairly balance[s]’ those hours that were actually billed in block format” and how it determined the percentage of reduction to apply. Welch, 480 F.3d at 948 (quoting Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140, 1146 (9th Cir. 2001)).