Court Opinion

ID: 9479938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:33:22.349311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:22.947831
License: Public Domain

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority that it was error for the district court to reduce the lodestar figure based on the simplicity of the issues. The determination of the reasonableness of the lodestar fee necessarily includes weighing the complexity or simplicity of the issues. Instead of approaching the lodestar fee on that basis, the district court first fixed the lodestar at $6,835.50 and then reduced it to $3,417.75 because (a) the same issue had been previously fully litigated in a Utah state district court, with the same result, (b) many of the arguments advanced in this case were propounded in the state court summary judgment and a 1970 Utah law review article, and (c) the defendants conceded the unconstitutionality of the statute.
Although I agree that the district court erred in the method used to arrive at the lodestar fee, I believe that the intentions of the district court are perfectly obvious in the record. Thus, instead of reversing and ordering that the district court set the award at the lodestar figure at $6,835.50, I would remand for further proceedings consistent with our opinion on the calculation of the lodestar figure.
Accordingly, I must dissent from the majority’s order reversing the district court *1173and directing entry of the lodestar fee of $6,835.50.