Opinion ID: 655851
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Failure to Consider Results Obtained.

Text: 13 Moore argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the limited results obtained by Miladin in making its fee award. In Farrar, the Court stated that: 14 Although the technical nature of a nominal damages award or any other judgment does not affect the prevailing party inquiry, it does bear on the propriety of fees awarded under § 1988. Once civil rights litigation materially alters the legal relationship between the parties, the degree of the plaintiff's overall success goes to the reasonableness of a fee award under Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).... Indeed, the most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of success obtained. Hensley, supra, 461 U.S., at 436. 15 Farrar, 113 S.Ct. at 574. In Hensley, the Court remanded because the district court did not properly consider the relationship between the extent of success and the amount of the fee award. 461 U.S. at 438, 440. 16 We have described the analytic framework prescribed in Hensley as follows: 17 The district court first asks if the plaintiff did not prevail on claims that were unrelated to those on which he succeeded and excludes any fees associated with those unsuccessful claims. Second, the court makes further reductions when plaintiffs' success on any remaining interrelated unsuccessful and successful claims was limited. 18 Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1404 (9th Cir.1992). Full compensation may be appropriate if the plaintiff obtained excellent results, but may be excessive if the plaintiff obtained only partial or limited success. Corder v. Gates, 947 F.2d 374, 379 (9th Cir.1991) (quotations omitted). 19 Unfortunately, the district court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in Farrar when it decided this case. The district court's two orders awarding attorney's fees indicate that the court did not consider the limited nature of Miladin's success in making its fee award. 2 Instead, the court analyzed the reasonableness of the amount claimed in terms of the scope of the overall litigation. Although the district court excluded all work done in furtherance of claims and litigation activities unrelated to defendant Moore, it did not proceed to the second step of the Hensley analysis to determine whether Miladin's limited success on the interrelated unsuccessful and successful claims warranted further reduction. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434; Gates, 987 F.2d at 1404. We remand to allow the district court to consider whether the hours expended by Miladin's counsel were reasonable in light of the success obtained. 20 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. 3