Opinion ID: 156986
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hours Billed Unsuccessfully Resisting Arguments Relating

Text: 32 to Standing 33 The district court rejected time spent unsuccessfully resisting arguments relating to the standing of certain plaintiffs because those plaintiffs had standing deficiencies [that] should have been apparent when the complaint was filed. Aplts' App. vol. VII, at 2304. Because the district court could not decipher from the billing records how much time was spent on standing issues, it considered this fact in making a general reduction in lodestar hours. 34 The appellants ineffectively challenge this reduction in a footnote. See Aplts' Opening Br. at 28 n. 12. The district court did not reduce the fee simply because the appellants did not prevail on this issue, but rather because the billing records did not show which hours related to standing arguments and because the standing deficiencies, in the district court's judgment, were obvious. The district court was well within bounds to consider lack of success on the standing issues and its inability to segregate appellants' billing records for time spent on the issues to support a general reduction in time. 35