Opinion ID: 588801
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Excessive Hours

Text: 72 Appellants contend that the 247 hours attributed to the summary judgment litigation, and the 152 hours to the related interlocutory appeal, were excessive. The hours determined compensable by the district court do not appear excessive on their face and no particular rationale is assigned in support of the allegation of excessiveness as it relates to the summary judgment litigation. We recognize that the district court was better situated to evaluate whether the time spent on these services was reasonably necessary. See Foley, 948 F.2d at 19 ([A]n appellate tribunal lacks the means to replicate the trial court's first-hand knowledge of the litigation and its nuances.); Wagenmann, 829 F.2d at 224-25 (district court has far greater familiarity than do we with how much was done, who did it, and how effectively the result was accomplished); Chalmers v. Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1211 (9th Cir.1986) (The district court is in the best position to determine in the first instance the number of hours reasonably expended in furtherance of the successful aspects of a litigation.). We therefore defer to the district court's informed judgment that the hours devoted to various aspects of the case were reasonably efficient and necessary. 43 73