Opinion ID: 749836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prevailing Hourly Rate

Text: 38 Having defined Sacramento as the relevant community, the next inquiry becomes the reasonable hourly rate in the Sacramento area. The established standard is the rate prevailing in the community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir.1986). 39 In this case, the district court limited Appellants to an hourly rate of $200 instead of their requested rate of $250. We agree with the district court. 40 Barjon and Duran's evidence of a higher rate is unpersuasive. For example, they present evidence that several attorneys were awarded rates of $250 in a past case. But evidence that rates as high as $250 have been awarded on one occasion is far from establishing $250 as the prevailing rate in Sacramento. 41 Furthermore, Barjon and Duran claim their attorney has established her billing rate in Sacramento based on prior work done in the area. But an attorney's prior fee award is not sufficient without other evidence showing that the requested rates are prevailing in the community. While an attorney's prior fee award may bear on the selection of a reasonable fee in a later case ... simply offering the prior award is not enough. Schwarz, 73 F.3d at 908 (requiring additional proof that the requested rates are in line with other attorneys in the community of similar skill). 42 As a last attempt, Appellants argue that an attorney's customary billing rate is strong evidence of the prevailing market value. More significantly, they contend that a different average rate in the community should not justify departure from the attorney's customary billing rate. But the only cite provided for this argument is a Seventh Circuit case. See Gusman v. Unisys Corp., 986 F.2d 1146 (7th Cir.1993). 43 In Gusman, Judge Easterbrook asserted that Blum v. Stenson does not establish a principle of averaging. Id. at 1149. However, even if Gusman were binding precedent, the district court in this case did not simply average the rates for all attorneys in the Sacramento area. Rather, the district court considered Wallace's expertise and experience and applied the prevailing rate for similarly qualified local counsel. This approach is well-established in our circuit. See White v. City of Richmond, 713 F.2d 458 (9th Cir.1983). 44 In short, we agree that $200 per hour is the appropriate prevailing rate in the Sacramento area.