Opinion ID: 1145408
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Enhancement of lodestar amount

Text: Singh argues that the United States Supreme Court has held that in appropriate circumstances it is permissible and proper for a court to `enhance' an attorney fee award based on contingent fee risk in order to fulfill the statutory goal of awarding reasonable attorney's fees to prevailing parties in discrimination cases under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987). Briefing in this appeal, however, was concluded prior to the Supreme Court's decision in City of Burlington v. Dague, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992). In Dague, the Supreme Court held that a federal fee-shifting statute did not allow upward adjustment of a lodestar fee for the risk of nonpayment incurred by the prevailing party's attorney. While Dague involved environmental litigation, its reasoning applies to all federal fee-shifting statutes. Id. at ___, 112 S.Ct. at 2641; see also Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392, 1403 (9th Cir.1992) (Given the Court's holding in Dague, it is clear that contingency multipliers are no longer permitted under § 1988.); Barrow v. Falck, 977 F.2d 1100, 1105 (7th Cir.1992) ( Dague ... prohibits enhancements under § 1988.). Thus, we affirm the superior court's denial of Singh's request for enhancement of his lodestar fee.