Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 1 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | ||||||||
2 | ||||||||
3 | ||||||||
4 | ||||||||
5 | ||||||||
6 | ||||||||
7 | ||||||||
8 | ||||||||
9 | ||||||||
10 | ||||||||
11 | ||||||||
12 | IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | |||||||
13 | FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | |||||||
14 | ||||||||
MHC FINANCING, LTD, et al, | ||||||||
15 | No | C 00-3785 VRW | ||||||
Plaintiffs, | ||||||||
16 | ORDER | |||||||
v | ||||||||
17 | ||||||||
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, | ||||||||
18 | ||||||||
Defendant, | ||||||||
19 | ||||||||
CONTEMPO MARIN HOMEOWNERS | ||||||||
20 | ASSOCIATION, | |||||||
21 | Defendant-Intervenor. | |||||||
22 | / | |||||||
22 | ||||||||
23 | Plaintiffs MHC Financing Ltd Partnership and Grapeland | |||||||
24 | Vistas, Inc (collectively, MHC), filed a complaint in 2000 against | |||||||
25 | defendant City of San Rafael (the City) alleging that the City’s | |||||||
26 | mobilehome rent control ordinance (“Ordinance”) was an unlawful | |||||||
27 | taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Doc #1. The parties | |||||||
28 | now move for attorney fees and costs under 42 USC § 1988, the fee- |
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 2 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | shifting statute applicable to civil rights cases. Doc ##576, 583. | |||
2 | Because both MHC and the City asserted they had achieved some | |||
3 | measure of success in this lengthy litigation, the court requested | |||
4 | briefing to determine the “prevailing party.” Doc #558. | |||
5 | ||||
6 | I | |||
7 | MHC owns the Contempo Marin Mobilehome Park (“Contempo | |||
8 | Marin”) in San Rafael. Doc #1 at 2. In its original complaint, | |||
9 | MHC claimed the Ordinance was a regulatory taking because it failed | |||
10 | substantially to advance a legitimate state interest. Id at 7; see | |||
11 | Richardson v City and County of Honolulu, 124 F3d 1150, 1164 (9th | |||
12 | Cir 1997). MHC alleged that although the City’s stated purpose in | |||
13 | enforcing the Ordinance was to provide affordable housing, the | |||
14 | Ordinance did no such thing. Id. The complaint requested monetary | |||
15 | and injunctive relief. Id at 8. | |||
16 | MHC’s complaint related to the City’s regulation of rent | |||
17 | control in Contempo Marin. In 1993, the City had amended a | |||
18 | previous ordinance to add “vacancy control.” Doc #554 at 10. | |||
19 | Under vacancy control, any new resident taking over a lease in | |||
20 | Contempo Marin would rent the pad at the same rate as the previous | |||
21 | tenant. Id. In 1999, the City amended the ordinance again to | |||
22 | limit rent increases to 75 percent of any change in inflation. Id | |||
23 | at 13. The 1999 amendments imposed an ever-growing gap between the | |||
24 | fair market rental value of a mobilehome pad lease and the rental | |||
25 | rate MHC could charge. Id at 14. | |||
26 | As a result of the 1999 amendments, future rents at | |||
27 | Contempo Marin would be depressed because rents would not keep up | |||
28 | with inflation. Id at 15-16. Accordingly, in order to obtain the |
2
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 3 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | benefit of lower future rent payments, prospective buyers would be | |||
2 | willing to pay a higher price to purchase the mobilehome itself | |||
3 | from the existing tenant. Id. In this manner, the reduction in | |||
4 | rents was “capitalized” into the value of the mobilehome. Id. | |||
5 | Thus the 1999 amendments created a one-time-only premium in the | |||
6 | resale prices of mobilehomes in Contempo Marin. | |||
7 | The only beneficiaries of that premium were the residents | |||
8 | of Contempo Marin at the time the 1999 amendments went into effect. | |||
9 | Doc #554 at 19-20. Because the 1999 amendments did not change the | |||
10 | total amount that future tenants would end up paying to live at | |||
11 | Contempo Marin (mobilehome price plus rent), the 1999 amendments | |||
12 | themselves did not contribute to the availability of low-cost | |||
13 | housing in the City. Id at 19. Meanwhile, the complete Ordinance | |||
14 | reduced MHC’s net operating income by 75 percent and reduced the | |||
15 | value of the park from $120 million to $23 million. Id at 24-26. | |||
16 | In 2001, the parties reached a settlement agreement | |||
17 | whereby the City agreed to “initiate” amendments that would repeal | |||
18 | vacancy control. See Doc #23, Exh 1. On July 11, 2001, the court | |||
19 | stayed proceedings in this case while the parties implemented the | |||
20 | conditional settlement agreement. Doc #10. The City Council held | |||
21 | public hearings, but elected not to repeal vacancy control. MHC | |||
22 | then moved to enforce the settlement agreement. Doc #23. On March | |||
23 | 19, 2002, the court granted MHC’s motion, finding that the City was | |||
24 | contractually obligated to repeal vacancy control. Doc #56. | |||
25 | MHC next filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging | |||
26 | state-law claims for breach of contract and breach of the duty of | |||
27 | good faith and fair dealing. Doc #78 (third and fourth causes of | |||
28 | action). The FAC also alleged that the City’s refusal to permit |
3
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 4 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | MHC to change the use of the park constituted a physical taking. | |||
2 | Doc #78 (fifth and sixth causes of action). | |||
3 | In 2002, the court granted the motion of Contempo Marin | |||
4 | Homeowners Association (CMHA) to intervene as a defendant. In | |||
5 | addition, on August 7, 2002, the court granted the City’s motion | |||
6 | for reconsideration of the court’s earlier holding that the | |||
7 | settlement agreement was a valid contract. Doc #99. | |||
8 | The case proceeded to trial. In late October and | |||
9 | November, 2002, the state-law contract causes of action were tried | |||
10 | before a jury (Doc ##337-350) and the constitutional causes of | |||
11 | action were tried before the court (Doc #366, 370, 371, 378). The | |||
12 | jury returned a verdict in favor of the City on the contract | |||
13 | claims. Doc #350. The court stayed its ruling on the takings | |||
14 | causes of action pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision inLingle v | |||
15 | Chevron USA, Inc, 363 F3d 846 (9th Cir 2004). | |||
16 | The Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Lingle on April | |||
17 | 1, 2004. On October 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court | |||
18 | granted certiorari inLingle (543 US 924 (2004)) and the court | |||
19 | subsequently extended its stay pending the Supreme Court’s Lingle | |||
20 | decision. Doc #437. | |||
21 | On May 23, 2005, the United States Supreme Court issued | |||
22 | its decision inLingle, rejecting the “substantially advances” | |||
23 | theory that had served as the basis for MHC’s regulatory takings | |||
24 | claim. Doc #444. Based on theLingle decision, MHC requested | |||
25 | leave to amend its complaint and file new constitutional claims. | |||
26 | Doc #450. The court granted MHC’s motion to amend its complaint on | |||
27 | January 27, 2006. Doc #468. | |||
28 | // |
4
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 5 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | On February 17, 2006, MHC filed a corrected Second | |||
2 | Amended Complaint (SAC). Doc #472 Exh A. The SAC alleged a | |||
3 | regulatory taking underPenn Central Transportation Co v New York | |||
4 | City, 438 US 104 (1978) rather than underRichardson. In | |||
5 | connection with its regulatory taking argument, MHC alleged that | |||
6 | the Ordinance was an improper land-use exaction underNollan v | |||
7 | California Coastal Commission, 483 US 825 (1987) andDolan v City | |||
8 | of Tigard, 512 US 374 (1994). Id at ¶¶96-101. The SAC also | |||
9 | alleged that the Ordinance was a private taking underKelo v City | |||
10 | of New London, 545 US 469 (2005). MHC added a claim that the | |||
11 | Ordinance denied them substantive due process as described in | |||
12 | Lingle. The SAC retained the physical takings cause of action as | |||
13 | well as the contract causes of action. The SAC sought declaratory | |||
14 | and injunctive relief. | |||
15 | On December 5, 2006, the court granted defendants’ motion | |||
16 | to dismiss the physical takings cause of action and denied the | |||
17 | motion on the other causes of action. Doc #486. | |||
18 | The court conducted a bench trial on MHC’s remaining | |||
19 | claims on April 9, 11, 24 and 30, and May 1, 2007. Doc #509, 517, | |||
20 | 524, 526, 527. The court issued preliminary findings of fact and | |||
21 | conclusions of law on July 26, 2007 (Doc #544) and, after further | |||
22 | briefing, issued a final order on January 29, 2008. Doc #554. | |||
23 | In its final order, the court concluded that the | |||
24 | Ordinance effected a regulatory taking under thePenn Central test | |||
25 | as well as a private taking under the Public Use Clause of the | |||
26 | Fifth Amendment. The court held that the Ordinance did not deny | |||
27 | MHC due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. | |||
28 | // |
5
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 6 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | II | |||
2 | MHC moves to recover all of its attorney fees and costs | |||
3 | because it prevailed on its ultimate regulatory taking claim and | |||
4 | achieved its objective in bringing the lawsuit with a court order | |||
5 | that the Ordinance is unconstitutional. Doc #584 at 6. The City | |||
6 | argues that it is entitled to attorney fees and costs as the | |||
7 | prevailing party on MHC’s breach of contract claim and breach of | |||
8 | implied covenant claim. Doc #577 at 11-14. And while the City | |||
9 | concedes that MHC prevailed on some of its takings theories | |||
10 | (regulatory taking and private taking), the City requests a | |||
11 | reduction in MHC’s fee request on the grounds that MHC failed to | |||
12 | succeed onall its takings theories. The City argues that MHC did | |||
13 | not prevail on either its pre-Lingle claim or its breach of | |||
14 | contract claims and is not entitled to fees incurred in pursuing | |||
15 | those unsuccessful causes of action. Id at 15-18. | |||
16 | 42 USC § 1988 allows a court to award reasonable attorney | |||
17 | fees to a prevailing party in a civil rights action.Hensley v | |||
18 | Eckerhart, 461 US 424, 429 (1983);Chalmers v City of Los Angeles, | |||
19 | 796 F2d 1205, 1210 (9th Cir 1985). “The purpose of § 1988 is to | |||
20 | ensure effective access to the judicial process for persons with | |||
21 | civil rights grievances.”Hensley, 461 US at 429 (internal | |||
22 | quotation and citation omitted). Accordingly, a prevailing | |||
23 | plaintiff in a civil rights action should typically recover a | |||
24 | reasonable attorney fee “unless special circumstances would render | |||
25 | such an award unjust.” Id (internal quotation and citations | |||
26 | omitted); seeChalmers, 796 F2d at 1210. | |||
27 | The Supreme Court has instructed that “the extent of a | |||
28 | plaintiff’s success is a crucial factor in determining the proper |
6
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 7 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | amount of an award of attorney’s fees under 42 USC § 1988.” | |||
2 | Hensley, 461 US at 440. In determining whether a plaintiff’s | |||
3 | limited success should reduce the number of hours for which it is | |||
4 | entitled to a reasonable fee, the Ninth Circuit has formulated a | |||
5 | two-part test: (1) consider whether the claims on which the | |||
6 | plaintiff failed to prevail are related to the claims on which he | |||
7 | succeeded; (2) if the claims are related, determine whether the | |||
8 | plaintiff achieved a level of success that makes the hours | |||
9 | reasonably expended on those unrelated claims a satisfactory basis | |||
10 | for the fee award.Sorenson v Mink, 239 F3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir | |||
11 | 2001). MHC was successful on its takings claim but lost on its | |||
12 | contract claims. Accordingly, the court must determine whether to | |||
13 | award fees on each of those claims. | |||
14 | First, to determine whether the claims are related, the | |||
15 | court essentially must examine whether the claims were intended to | |||
16 | remedy “the same course of conduct.”Schwarz v Sec’y of Health & | |||
17 | Human Services, 73 F3d 895, 903 (9th Cir 1995). Factors to | |||
18 | consider are: (1) whether the claims arise from the same core of | |||
19 | facts; (2) whether it is likely that some of the work performed in | |||
20 | connection with the unsuccessful claims aided the work performed on | |||
21 | the merits of the successful claims; and (3) whether the same or | |||
22 | different individuals were the primary perpetrators.Id. If the | |||
23 | unsuccessful claim is unrelated to the successful claims, then the | |||
24 | hours expended on those unrelated, unsuccessful claims should not | |||
25 | be included in the fee award. | |||
26 | // | |||
27 | // | |||
28 | // |
7
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 8 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | A | |||
2 | The City argues first that the pre-Lingle takings causes | |||
3 | of action are not related to the constitutional causes of action on | |||
4 | which MHC eventually prevailed. MHC prevailed on a private takings | |||
5 | cause of action and an as-applied regulatory takings cause of | |||
6 | action. MHC did not prevail on its facial regulatory takings cause | |||
7 | of action (the “substantially advances” theory), its substantive | |||
8 | due process cause of action, its land-use exaction theory or its | |||
9 | physical takings cause of action. | |||
10 | All these different causes of action except due process | |||
11 | are part of the same “claim”: a taking of private property in | |||
12 | violation of the Fifth Amendment. MHC’s various causes of action | |||
13 | are different theories in support of the same claim. This court | |||
14 | recognized that distinction in its order of December 5, 2006, | |||
15 | granting partial summary judgment, in which the court defined the | |||
16 | second amended complaint thusly: “MHC proffersfour different | |||
17 | theories for its takings claim, alleging that the City has | |||
18 | performed: [a regulatory taking, a physical taking, a private | |||
19 | taking and a land-use exaction].” Doc #486 at 3 (emphasis added). | |||
20 | The Supreme Court emphasized the claim versus cause of | |||
21 | action distinction inYee v Escondido, 503 US 519, 534-35 (1992). | |||
22 | Yee focused on physical taking, but the Court also considered | |||
23 | whether to address the landowner’s regulatory taking argument.Yee | |||
24 | rejected the contention that the regulatory taking argument was not | |||
25 | before the Court because it was not raised below. The Court | |||
26 | focused on claims, not arguments: | |||
27 | // | |||
28 | // |
8
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 9 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | Petitioners unquestionably raised a taking claim in the | |||
state courts. The question whether the rent control | ||||
2 | ordinance took their property without compensation, in | |||
violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, is | ||||
3 | thus properly before us. Once a federal claim is | |||
properly presented, a party can make any argument in | ||||
4 | support of that claim; parties are not limited to the | |||
precise arguments they made below. Petitioners’ | ||||
5 | arguments that the ordinance constitutes a taking in two | |||
different ways, by physical occupation and by regulation | ||||
6 | are not separate claims. They are, rather, separate | |||
arguments in support of a single claim — that the | ||||
7 | ordinance effects an unconstitutional taking. | |||
8 | Yee, 503 US at 534-35; see also id at 537 (declining nevertheless | |||
9 | to rule on regulatory taking because the question presented was | |||
10 | limited to physical taking). | |||
11 | Similarly, MHC’s various taking theories here all support | |||
12 | a single unconstitutional taking claim. Moreover, MHC’s pre-Lingle | |||
13 | taking claim was closely related to the regulatory taking claim on | |||
14 | which MHC ultimately prevailed. The variety and changes in MHC’s | |||
15 | theories merely reflect the uncertainty and dynamic nature of | |||
16 | Takings Clause case law. Accordingly, MHC’s various taking | |||
17 | arguments are all part of the same taking claim. MHC prevailed on | |||
18 | its regulatory taking claim and is entitled to recover attorney | |||
19 | fees and costs for its pursuit of that claim even though its | |||
20 | arguments changed to correspond with the changing law. | |||
21 | The substantive due process claim, by contrast, is a | |||
22 | separate and distinct claim. It arises out of the Fourteenth | |||
23 | Amendment directly, whereas the taking claim arises out of the | |||
24 | Fifth Amendment as incorporated against the several states. As the | |||
25 | Supreme Court stated inLingle, a “means-ends” due process inquiry | |||
26 | “is logically prior to and distinct from the question whether a | |||
27 | regulation effects a taking * * *.” 544 US at 542-43. | |||
28 | // |
9
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 10 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | Nevertheless, under theSchwarz factors described above, | |||
2 | the two claims are related. First, the claims arise from the same | |||
3 | set of facts: the City’s 1993 and 1999 amendments to its rent | |||
4 | control Ordinance. The facts underlying both claims are identical; | |||
5 | the only difference is the legal theory of liability. Second, much | |||
6 | of the work performed in connection with the unsuccessful due | |||
7 | process claim aided the successful private taking claim. The | |||
8 | essence of the court’s private taking ruling was that the | |||
9 | amendments were pretextual and were not connected to the City’s | |||
10 | asserted interests in affordable housing. The evidence suggesting | |||
11 | that the Ordinance was not rationally related to its stated goals | |||
12 | is especially relevant in determining whether those stated goals | |||
13 | were pretextual. Third, the same entity — the City, and in | |||
14 | particular the City Council — was responsible for all the actions | |||
15 | challenged in this litigation. UnderSchwarz, the unsuccessful due | |||
16 | process claim is related to the successful constitutional claim. | |||
17 | The somewhat more difficult issue is whether MHC’s state- | |||
18 | law claims are related to its taking claim. MHC alleged that by | |||
19 | not repealing vacancy control, the City breached the settlement | |||
20 | agreement and breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. | |||
21 | The court determined early on that the contract claims | |||
22 | were substantively unrelated to the taking claim. On October 18, | |||
23 | 2002, the court prohibited CMHA from participating in the jury | |||
24 | trial for this reason. Doc #252. The court stated that CMHA’s | |||
25 | interest was “limited to * * * [the] defense of the ordinance” and | |||
26 | thus CMHA could participate in the taking claim only. On the eve | |||
27 | of trial, therefore, the court specifically recognized that the | |||
28 | Ordinance’s enforcement — the central issue in this litigation and |
10
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 11 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | the focus of MHC’s requested relief — was not at stake in MHC’s | |||
2 | contract claims. The court’s determination in 2002 that the | |||
3 | contract claims were unrelated to the Ordinance’s validity | |||
4 | contradicts MHC’s argument today that the contract “claims also | |||
5 | sought to achieve the same objective as the successful | |||
6 | constitutional claims, i e, relief from the effects of the | |||
7 | ordinance.” Doc #584 at 6. | |||
8 | The relief sought on contract claims was not related to | |||
9 | the relief eventually obtained: an injunction against the | |||
10 | Ordinance. ConsiderHensley, 461 US at 435 (“Litigants in good | |||
11 | faith may raise alternative legal grounds for a desired outcome, | |||
12 | and the court’s rejection of or failure to reach certain grounds is | |||
13 | not a sufficient reason for reducing a fee. The result is what | |||
14 | matters.”). The contract claims were not “alternative legal | |||
15 | grounds” for MHC’s desired outcome — to enjoin the Ordinance. If | |||
16 | MHC had prevailed on its contract claims, it would not have been | |||
17 | entitled to specific performance of the settlement agreement. | |||
18 | Instead, the City would have paid the monetary “compensatory | |||
19 | damages” that MHC requested in its prayer for relief. See Doc #68 | |||
20 | (FAC). | |||
21 | UnderSchwarz, the question is whether the claims were | |||
22 | intended to remedy “the same course of conduct.”Schwarz, 73 F3d | |||
23 | at 903. Again, the factors to consider are: (1) whether the claims | |||
24 | arise from the same core of facts; (2) whether it is likely that | |||
25 | some of the work performed in connection with the unsuccessful | |||
26 | claims aided the work performed on the merits of the successful | |||
27 | claims; and (3) whether the same or different individuals were the | |||
28 | primary perpetrators. The court concludes that only at a high |
11
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 12 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | level of generality were the taking claims and state claims | |||
2 | intended to remedy “the same course of conduct.” Accordingly, the | |||
3 | claims are not “related” for the purposes of section 1988. | |||
4 | MHC has not established that the claims arise from the | |||
5 | same core set of facts. The facts relevant to MHC’s state claims | |||
6 | all occurred in 2001, culminating in the City Council’s vote | |||
7 | against repeal on September 17, 2001. The facts relevant to MHC’s | |||
8 | taking claim, however, occurred primarily in 1993 and 1999 when the | |||
9 | City Council studied and debated the Ordinance. Similarly, the | |||
10 | questions whether the City broke a promise or negotiated unfairly | |||
11 | are not connected to the question whether the Ordinance takes MHC’s | |||
12 | property unlawfully. And the reasons for declining to repeal an | |||
13 | ordinance — including a reluctance to disrupt reasonable | |||
14 | expectations in the housing market — are not necessarily connected | |||
15 | to the reasons for enacting the law in the first place. Overall, | |||
16 | the relationship between the facts underlying the taking claim and | |||
17 | the facts underlying the state claims is unclear, but that | |||
18 | uncertainty weighs against the party requesting fees. | |||
19 | On the secondSchwarz factor, there is little to suggest | |||
20 | that the work performed on the state claims aided the work | |||
21 | performed on thePenn Central and private taking theories. MHC’s | |||
22 | proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law are particularly | |||
23 | useful in determining which evidence MHC relied on to support its | |||
24 | successful takings theories. See Doc #539. But evidence | |||
25 | surrounding the failed settlement agreement did not materially aid | |||
26 | MHC’s argument that the Ordinance effected a regulatory taking and | |||
27 | a private taking. | |||
28 | // |
12
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 13 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | ThePenn Central argument centered on the reduction in | |||
2 | value of MHC’s property. That inquiry requires detailed economic | |||
3 | analysis of housing markets, not contract interpretation or | |||
4 | testimony from City Council members. MHC contends that the failed | |||
5 | settlement agreement offered further evidence that the City would | |||
6 | not allow MHC to put the park to other economically beneficial uses | |||
7 | (see Doc #539 at ¶178). While this fact appears to be true, it | |||
8 | does not closely relate to the showing that MHC needed to make, and | |||
9 | did make, to establish its taking claim: namely, the ever- | |||
10 | increasing premium that the Ordinance extracted from MHC and | |||
11 | appropriated to Contempo Marin residents dating from its enactment. | |||
12 | MHC cites statements made by the City in 2001 surrounding | |||
13 | the settlement agreement. See Doc #539 at ¶¶47-56. MHC argues | |||
14 | that those statements show that the City knew the Ordinance did not | |||
15 | create affordable housing, and thus the Ordinance was a pretext to | |||
16 | cover up a wealth transfer to politically powerful citizens. | |||
17 | Again, despite the apparent accuracy of MHC’s observation, | |||
18 | invalidity of the Ordinance does not turn on the subjective intent | |||
19 | of the authorities enacting it. | |||
20 | The thirdSchwarz factor — the perpetrator’s identity — | |||
21 | is neutral here because subjective intent is what counts for | |||
22 | purposes of the pretext analysis, and the record is unclear whether | |||
23 | City Council membership was constant from 1993 to 2001. | |||
24 | Although it is sometimes difficult to untangle “the hours | |||
25 | expended on a claim-by-claim basis” (seeHensley, 461 US at 435), | |||
26 | that concern is less present in this case than in most. The state | |||
27 | claims did not accrue until September 2001, at which point they | |||
28 | were quickly briefed and brought to trial in 2002. There may be |
13
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 14 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | overlap in the evidence used in the jury trial and that used in the | |||
2 | original bench trial, but almost all of that evidence had already | |||
3 | been collected while pursuing the taking claim. | |||
4 | Accordingly, MHC’s unsuccessful breach of contract claims | |||
5 | are not “related” to the taking claim for the purposes of section | |||
6 | 1988. The court will reduce MHC’s number of claimed hours for lack | |||
7 | of success on the contract claims. | |||
8 | ||||
9 | B | |||
10 | The City, having obtained a jury verdict in its favor on | |||
11 | the contract claims, requests its fees and costs incurred in | |||
12 | defending against that claim. | |||
13 | The City argues that it is the prevailing party on the | |||
14 | contract claims. The settlement agreement states: | |||
15 | If any action at law or in equity including an action for | |||
declaratory relief is brought to enforce or interpret the | ||||
16 | terms or provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing | |||
party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable | ||||
17 | attorney’s fees and costs * * *. | |||
18 | Doc #23 Exh 1 at ¶2.14. The agreement states that “all disputes” | |||
19 | shall be governed by California law. Id at ¶2.15. California | |||
20 | Civil Code § 1717(a) states: | |||
21 | In any action on a contract, where the contract | |||
specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, | ||||
22 | which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be | |||
awarded either to one of the parties or to the prevailing | ||||
23 | party, then the party who is determined to bethe party | |||
prevailing on the contract * * * shall be entitled to | ||||
24 | reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs. | |||
25 | Cal Civ Code § 1717(a) (emphasis added). The City argues that even | |||
26 | though it lost on the taking claim, it prevailed on the contract | |||
27 | claims and is entitled to fees incurred in defending those claims. | |||
28 | // |
14
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 15 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | MHC responds that the City “lost the war by choosing to | |||
2 | fight this battle” and therefore the court “should find either that | |||
3 | MHC prevailed on the settlement agreement claims or that there was | |||
4 | no prevailing party on those claims.” Doc #584 at 10-11. MHC | |||
5 | asserts that the City’s loss on the constitutional claim should | |||
6 | affect the City’s fee request on the contract claims. | |||
7 | The California Supreme Court addressed this issue inHsu | |||
8 | v Abarra, 9 Cal 4th 863 (1995).Hsu analyzed the evolution of | |||
9 | section 1717 over six years of amendments. While the statute | |||
10 | previously awarded fees to the party that obtained a final judgment | |||
11 | in the litigation, the current version made a significant change: | |||
12 | “The Legislature replaced the term ‘prevailing party’ with ‘party | |||
13 | prevailing on the contract,’ evidently to emphasize that the | |||
14 | determination of prevailing party for purposes of contractual | |||
15 | attorney fees was to be madewithout reference to the success or | |||
16 | failure of noncontract claims.” Hsu, 9 Cal 4th at 873-74 (emphasis | |||
17 | added).Hsu emphasized that the outcome of a noncontract claim | |||
18 | cannot tarnish an unqualified win on the contract claim: | |||
19 | [W]hen the results of the litigation on the contract | |||
claims arenot mixed — that is, when the decision on the | ||||
20 | litigated contract claims is purely good news for one | |||
party and bad news for the other — the Courts of Appeal | ||||
21 | have recognized that a trial court has no discretion to | |||
deny attorney fees to the successful litigant. Thus, | ||||
22 | when a defendant defeats recovery by the plaintiff on the | |||
only contract claim in the action, the defendant is the | ||||
23 | party prevailing on the contract under section 1717 as a | |||
matter of law. * * *. | ||||
24 | * * *. | |||
Here, the judgment was a ‘simple, unqualified win’ for | ||||
25 | [defendants] on the only contract claim between them and | |||
[plaintiffs]. In this situation, the trial court had no | ||||
26 | discretion to deny [defendants] their attorney fees under | |||
section 1717 by finding, expressly or impliedly, that | ||||
27 | there was no prevailing party on the contract. * * *. | |||
28 | 9 Cal 4th at 875-76 (internal citations omitted). |
15
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 16 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | UnderHsu, the court may look to overall litigation | |||
2 | success to determine who is the prevailing party only if the result | |||
3 | of the contract claim is mixed or ambiguous. The City here | |||
4 | obtained an unqualified victory on the MHC’s contract claims. | |||
5 | Accordingly,Hsu dictates that the City is entitled to reasonable | |||
6 | costs and attorney fees incurred in defending those claims. | |||
7 | ||||
8 | III | |||
9 | A reasonable attorney fee is the number of hours and the | |||
10 | hourly rate that would be billed by “reasonably competent counsel.” | |||
11 | Venegas v Mitchell, 495 US 82, 86 (1990);Blanchard v Bergeron, 489 | |||
12 | US 87 (1989). InVenegas andBlanchard, the reasonable fee awarded | |||
13 | by the district court differed from the fee due under the agreement | |||
14 | between the fee applicant and the attorney. In each case, the | |||
15 | party entered into a contingent fee agreement, prevailed on the | |||
16 | merits and obtained an award of reasonable attorney fees. In | |||
17 | Blanchard, the court-awarded fees were greater than the amount due | |||
18 | under the fee agreement whereas inVenegas, the court-awarded fees | |||
19 | were less than the amount due under the fee agreement. In each | |||
20 | case, the Supreme Court concluded that the fee agreement was | |||
21 | enforceable and did not alter the amount awardable as a reasonable | |||
22 | attorney fee.Blanchard, 489 US at 96 (concluding that the “trial | |||
23 | judge should not be limited by the contractual fee agreement | |||
24 | between plaintiff and counsel”);Venegas, 495 US at 90 (holding | |||
25 | that Ҥ 1988 controls what the losing defendant must pay, not what | |||
26 | the prevailing party must pay his lawyer”). | |||
27 | UnderVenegas andBlanchard, fee applicants are entitled | |||
28 | to an award sufficient to “enable them to secure reasonably |
16
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 17 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | competent counsel,” but are not entitled to an award “necessary to | |||
2 | secure counsel of their choice.”Venegas, 495 US at 89-90. | |||
3 | Accordingly, courts award the fee that would be charged by | |||
4 | reasonably competent counsel, not the fee due under the agreement | |||
5 | between the fee applicant and its attorneys. Limiting the award to | |||
6 | the fee charged by reasonably competent counsel fulfills the aim of | |||
7 | fee-shifting provisions, which is to allow parties to employ | |||
8 | reasonably competent counsel “without cost to themselves if they | |||
9 | prevail.” 495 US at 86. Thus, even if a party chooses to employ | |||
10 | counsel of unusual skill and experience, the court awards only the | |||
11 | fee necessary to secure reasonably competent counsel. | |||
12 | Reasonably competent counsel bill a reasonable number of | |||
13 | hours. Reasonably competent counsel do not bill hours that are | |||
14 | “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” See Hensley, 461 | |||
15 | US at 434. Additionally, the court must take into consideration | |||
16 | discounts commonly given to clients and an attorney’s ability to | |||
17 | collect fees from clients. AsHensley emphasized: | |||
18 | In the private sector, “billing judgment” is | |||
an important component in fee setting. It is | ||||
19 | no less important here. Hours that are not | |||
properly billed to one’s client also are not | ||||
20 | properly billed to one’s adversary pursuant to | |||
statutory authority. | ||||
21 | ||||
22 | 461 US at 434 (internal quotation omitted; emphasis omitted). | |||
23 | First, the court must determine whether the requested | |||
24 | number of hours is greater than, less than or the same number of | |||
25 | hours that reasonably competent counsel would have billed. If the | |||
26 | requested number of hours is greater than the number of hours | |||
27 | reasonably competent counsel would have billed, then the court | |||
28 | should reduce the requested number of hours accordingly. See |
17
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 18 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | Hensley, 461 US at 434 (describing the court’s duty to eliminate | |||
2 | hours that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary”). | |||
3 | If the requested number of hours is less than the number of hours | |||
4 | reasonably competent counsel would have billed, the court should | |||
5 | compensate the fee applicant at an above-average hourly rate. If | |||
6 | the requested number of hours is the same as the number of hours | |||
7 | reasonably competent counsel would have billed, the court should | |||
8 | use the number of hours requested. | |||
9 | Second, the court must determine a reasonable hourly | |||
10 | rate. As the parties recognize, it is this court’s practice to | |||
11 | rely on the so-calledLaffey matrix in determining a reasonable | |||
12 | hourly rate. SeeLaffey v Northwest Airlines, Inc, 572 F Supp 354 | |||
13 | (DDC 1983), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 746 F2d | |||
14 | 4 (DC Cir 1984). In performing a lodestar calculation, the court | |||
15 | ensures that the fee applicant receives, and the losing party pays, | |||
16 | a reasonable attorney fee; the court need not ensure that the | |||
17 | agreement between the fee applicant and its attorneys provides a | |||
18 | fair market rate for the attorneys’ services. As stated in | |||
19 | Venegas, a court’s determination of a reasonable attorney fee | |||
20 | “controls what the losing defendant must pay, not what the | |||
21 | prevailing party must pay his lawyer.”Venegas, 495 US at 90. | |||
22 | ||||
23 | A | |||
24 | The court now turns to the substance of the fee requests. | |||
25 | MHC has filed three documents supporting its accounting of attorney | |||
26 | fees. Doc ##585, 600, 610. MHC provided the affidavit of David | |||
27 | Bradford, on March 14, 2008, which listed the total attorney hours | |||
28 | expended on this case of 10,640.35. Doc #585, Exh E. On April 15, |
18
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 19 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | 2008, MHC requested administrative leave to file a supplemental | |||
2 | memorandum and the supporting affidavit of Lisa Scruggs (Doc #600), | |||
3 | which provided additional documentation in support of MHC’s request | |||
4 | for costs and attorney fees. See Doc #600, Exh 2. Finally, in | |||
5 | response to the court’s April 4, 2009 order requesting MHC to | |||
6 | resolve several discrepancies between the Bradford affidavit and | |||
7 | the Scruggs affidavit, MHC filed David Bradford’s supplemental | |||
8 | declaration on April 8, 2009. | |||
9 | As a preliminary matter, the court has considered the | |||
10 | City’s opposition to MHC’s request to file the Scruggs affidavit. | |||
11 | Doc #602. MHC provided supporting documentation in its initial | |||
12 | request for attorney fees and its bill of costs (Doc ##585, 586). | |||
13 | MHC felt the need, however, to file a second submission (the | |||
14 | Scruggs affidavit, Doc #600) to respond to some of the arguments | |||
15 | the City made in its opposition to MHC’s initial requests. Doc | |||
16 | #600 at 2. The City argues that MHC should be denied this | |||
17 | opportunity to supplement the record because the local rules | |||
18 | require appropriate supporting documentation for a bill of costs to | |||
19 | be filed along with the bill of costs. Civ L R 54-1. Because MHC | |||
20 | initially supported its request for attorney fees and bill of | |||
21 | costs, but further support became necessary in response to the | |||
22 | City’s opposition memorandum (Doc #588), the court GRANTS MHC’s | |||
23 | request for leave to file the Scruggs affidavit. Doc #600. | |||
24 | �� As a second preliminary matter, the court found several | |||
25 | discrepancies between the Bradford affidavit (Doc #585) and the | |||
26 | Scruggs affidavit (Doc #600) in the documentation of attorney | |||
27 | hours. See Doc #609 (court order requesting MHC to provide an | |||
28 | explanation and resolve the discrepancies). In response to the |
19
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 20 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | court’s request for an explanation, MHC provided a detailed | |||
2 | explanation of discrepancies between the Bradford affidavit and the | |||
3 | Scruggs affidavit and submitted updated hour totals. Doc #610. | |||
4 | Additionally, MHC submitted the declaration of Patrick Bull, Chief | |||
5 | Financial Officer for Jenner & Block, one of the law firms | |||
6 | representing MHC, who independently verified that the updated hour | |||
7 | totals were correct. Doc #611. Upon close review of MHC’s | |||
8 | submissions, the court is satisfied with MHC’s explanation of the | |||
9 | initial discrepancies and the updated hour totals. Moreover, the | |||
10 | updated hours total is not significantly different from the | |||
11 | previous total (total attorney hours changed from 10,640.35 to | |||
12 | 10,760.8). Accordingly, the court will consider MHC’s request for | |||
13 | attorney fees to include the corrected hour totals listed in | |||
14 | Bradford’s supplemental declaration. Doc #610, Exh S-1 at 12. | |||
15 | MHC states that its counsel have expended a total of | |||
16 | 14,104.9 professional hours in this litigation, which includes | |||
17 | attorney time, summer associate time and paralegal time. Doc | |||
18 | ##585, Exh E, 610, Exh S-1 (number obtained by making the | |||
19 | adjustments shown in exhibit S-1 to the tables presented in exhibit | |||
20 | E; see attachment 3, infra). MHC states that the “total amount | |||
21 | billed and paid” in “legal fees for professional time” was | |||
22 | $3,846,456.87. Doc #585 at ¶17. Using theLaffey 2008-09 rates, | |||
23 | the total expended hours produce a lodestar calculation of | |||
24 | $4,437,047.97. Attachment 4, infra. | |||
25 | Because MHC was not the prevailing party on its contract | |||
26 | claims, see part II A supra, MHC is not entitled to attorney fees | |||
27 | for time spent on those claims. At the court’s request (Doc #609), | |||
28 | MHC submitted documentation of the amount of time each attorney |
20
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 21 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | spent working on MHC’s contract claims. Doc #610 at 11. The total | |||
2 | number of hours expended on the contract claims, according to MHC, | |||
3 | was 3,871.7. This number seems reasonable based on the fact that | |||
4 | the City stated that it spent a total of 2896.35 hours opposing | |||
5 | those claims. See Attachment 5 (presenting the sum of the total | |||
6 | hours presented by the City in Doc #590, Exh C). Accordingly, for | |||
7 | each MHC attorney, the court will revise MHC’s fee request by | |||
8 | reducing each MHC attorney’s total hours by the number of hours | |||
9 | that attorney worked on the contract claims. See Attachment 4 | |||
10 | (presenting the revised hour totals for each MHC attorney and staff | |||
11 | group). The adjusted hour total is 10,233.2, for a lodestar of | |||
12 | $2,995,612.37. MHC states that it incurred $92,192.05 in | |||
13 | computerized research costs, bringing the attorney fee request to | |||
14 | $3,087,804.42. | |||
15 | The City describes MHC’s fee request as “shocking,” | |||
16 | stating that “[i]t is difficult to imagine a more defective (and | |||
17 | outrageous) fee application.” Doc #588 at 8. The City argues that | |||
18 | (1) MHC made no attempt to reduce its hours expended to a | |||
19 | reasonable amount; (2) the case was overstaffed; (3) the total | |||
20 | hours worked is “patently excessive” and “nearly twice the hours | |||
21 | incurred by the City” (Doc #588 at 17); (4) the work should be | |||
22 | charged at theLaffey rate for the year in which the work was | |||
23 | performed rather than the 2007-08 rate; (5) the requested hours are | |||
24 | insufficiently documented; (6) the Westlaw and Lexis charges are | |||
25 | insufficiently documented; and (7) the fee MHC actually paid is | |||
26 | lower than the requested lodestar fee. Doc #588. | |||
27 | As for the City’s own fee application, the City states | |||
28 | that it spent 2,896.35 hours on the contract claims. Applying the |
21
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 22 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | 2008-09 Laffey rate, adjusted for the locality pay differential for | |||
2 | the San Francisco Bay area, the lodestar total is $1,191,935.89. | |||
3 | Attachment 5; Doc #590, Exh C. | |||
4 | While MHC disputes the award of any legal fees to the | |||
5 | City based on MHC’s status as a prevailing party (see Doc #595 at | |||
6 | 13-15), MHC does not dispute the reasonableness of the City’s | |||
7 | attorney fee requests. Accordingly, the fee award to MHC will be | |||
8 | reduced by $1,191,935.89 to account for the City’s attorney fees on | |||
9 | the contract claims. | |||
10 | ||||
11 | B | |||
12 | The court begins its analysis of the reasonableness of | |||
13 | MHC’s fee request by determining whether the requested number of | |||
14 | hours is greater than the number of hours that reasonably competent | |||
15 | counsel would have billed. If so, then the court should reduce the | |||
16 | number of hours accordingly. SeeHensley, 461 US at 434 (holding | |||
17 | that court must eliminate hours that are “excessive, redundant, or | |||
18 | otherwise unnecessary”). | |||
19 | As noted, MHC claims to have spent 14,104.9 professional | |||
20 | hours on this case. The City argues that this claimed number of | |||
21 | hours is unreasonable. Specifically, the City argues that MHC used | |||
22 | an unreasonable number of attorneys and staff (thirty-two lawyers, | |||
23 | six summer associates, ten paralegals and thirteen project | |||
24 | assistants), offered no explanation for the use of multiple law | |||
25 | firms and requested payment for a substantially larger number of | |||
26 | hours than the city required to litigate the same case. Doc #588 | |||
27 | at 16-18. | |||
28 | // |
22
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 23 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | InDemocratic Party of Washington v Reed, 388 F3d 1281 | |||
2 | (9th Cir 2004), the Ninth Circuit discussed the use of the opposing | |||
3 | party’s total fees in evaluating the prevailing party’s fee | |||
4 | request: | |||
5 | While ‘[c]omparison of the hours spent in particular tasks by | |||
the attorney for the opposing party * * * does not necessarily | ||||
6 | indicate whether the hours expended by the party seeking fees | |||
were excessive’ because numerous factors can cause the | ||||
7 | prevailing party to have spent more time than the losing | |||
party, such a comparison is a useful guide in evaluating the | ||||
8 | appropriateness of time claimed. If the time claimed by the | |||
prevailing party is of a substantially greater magnitude than | ||||
9 | what the other side spent, that often indicates that too much | |||
time is claimed. | ||||
10 | ||||
11 | Id (alterations in original). The City claims to have spent 5,566 | |||
12 | attorney hours and 877 paralegal hours on this case. Doc #590, ¶5. | |||
13 | This compares to MHC, which spent a total of 10,760.8 attorney | |||
14 | hours and 3,286 staff hours. See attachment 3. | |||
15 | While MHC’s attorneys and staff spent about double the | |||
16 | time the City’s attorneys and staff spent, the court finds that | |||
17 | MHC’s request is reasonable. MHC spent about a third more hours | |||
18 | than the City litigating the contract claims (compare 3,871.7 | |||
19 | professional hours expended by MHC (Doc #610), with 2896.35 | |||
20 | professional hours spent by the City (Attachment 5)). Although | |||
21 | this difference is significant in terms of hours, its significance | |||
22 | diminishes considering the litigation postures of the parties. MHC | |||
23 | was put to the test of attempting to prove the intent of City | |||
24 | officials in entering into the settlement agreement. Pinning these | |||
25 | officials down was no small task and ultimately unsuccessful. By | |||
26 | contrast, all the City needed to do — and did do — was introduce | |||
27 | testimony that City officials had not understood the agreement, | |||
28 | // |
23
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 24 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | something that did not require much attorney time. A third more | |||
2 | hours spent by MHC under the circumstances was not unreasonable. | |||
3 | Most of the difference in time spent on this case was | |||
4 | based on the substantial amount of time MHC attorneys spent on the | |||
5 | various theories in support of MHC’s taking claim. MHC’s taking | |||
6 | claim was both novel and complicated and the court finds it | |||
7 | reasonable that it took a substantial amount of time to pursue. | |||
8 | MHC faced enormous challenges stemming from a legal and | |||
9 | constitutional landscape in avulsive change. The City had only to | |||
10 | react. The court finds that the two-to-one ratio spent on this | |||
11 | claim is justified given that MHC was forced to plow new ground in | |||
12 | this area of the law. | |||
13 | Accordingly, the court finds that the total hours claimed | |||
14 | in MHC’s fee request is a reasonable total. The court will reduce | |||
15 | the total for each MHC attorney by the amount of time spent on the | |||
16 | contract claims — because MHC did not prevail on its contract | |||
17 | claims — and award attorney fees based on that adjusted total. | |||
18 | See Attachments 3, 4. | |||
19 | ||||
20 | �� C | |||
21 | It is the practice of the undersigned to rely on official | |||
22 | data to determine reasonable hourly rates. One reliable official | |||
23 | source for rates that vary by experience levels is theLaffey | |||
24 | matrix used in the District of Columbia. See United States | |||
25 | Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, Laffey Matrix 2003- | |||
26 | 09, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/Divisions/ | |||
27 | Civil_Division/Laffey_Matrix7.html (last visited April 3, 2009), | |||
28 | Attachment 1, citingLaffey v Northwest Airlines, Inc, supra. |
24
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 25 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | Under the 2008-09Laffey matrix, attorneys with 20 or | |||
2 | more years experience bill $465/hour; attorneys with 11-19 years | |||
3 | experience bill $410 per hour; attorneys with 8-10 years experience | |||
4 | bill $330 per hour; attorneys with 4-7 years experience bill $270 | |||
5 | per hour; attorneys with 1-3 years experience bill $225 per hour | |||
6 | and paralegals and law clerks bill $130 per hour. | |||
7 | These figures are, however, tailored for the District of | |||
8 | Columbia, whereas the attorneys who represented MHC were located in | |||
9 | Chicago, Santa Ana and San Francisco. The court will adjust these | |||
10 | figures accordingly. The locality pay differentials within the | |||
11 | federal government approximate these differences. See United | |||
12 | States Office of Personnel, Salary Table, available at | |||
13 | http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables//pdf/salhr.pdf (last visited April | |||
14 | 3, 2009), Attachment 2 (exerpts). The Washington-Baltimore area | |||
15 | has a +20.89% locality pay differential; the Chicago-Naperville- | |||
16 | Michigan City, IL-IN-WI area has a 23.16% locality pay | |||
17 | differential; the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA area (close | |||
18 | to Sanata Ana, CA) has a 25.26% locality pay differential and the | |||
19 | San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA area has a +32.53% locality pay | |||
20 | differential. Thus, adjusting theLaffey matrix figures upward by | |||
21 | the following rates will yield appropriate rates for the | |||
22 | corresponding cities: 2% for Chicago1; 4% for Santa Ana2 and 10% for | |||
23 | San Francisco3. | |||
24 | Applying this adjustment and rounding, the court obtains | |||
25 | the following rates: (1) for attorneys located in Chicago, the | |||
26 | ||||
27 | 1(123.16 — 120.89) / 120.89 = 0.018, or about 2%. | |||
28 | 2(125.26 — 120.89) / 120.89 = 0.036, or about 4%. | |||
3(132.53 — 120.89) / 120.89 = 0.096, or about 10%. |
25
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 26 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | following pay rates apply: 20 or more years bill $473/hour, 11-19 | |||
2 | years bill $417/hour, 8-10 years bill $336/hour, 4-7 years bill | |||
3 | $275/hour, 1-3 years bill $229/hour and paralegals and law clerks | |||
4 | bill $132/hour; (2) for attorneys located in Santa Ana, the | |||
5 | following pay rates apply: 20 or more years bill $482/hour, 11-19 | |||
6 | years bill $425/hour, 8-10 years bill $342/hour, 4-7 years bill | |||
7 | $280/hour, 1-3 years bill $233/hour and paralegals and law clerks | |||
8 | bill $135/hour; (3) for attorneys located in San Francisco, the | |||
9 | following pay rates apply: 20 or more years bill $510/hour, 11-19 | |||
10 | years bill $449/hour, 8-10 years bill $362/hour, 4-7 years bill | |||
11 | $296/hour, 1-3 years bill $247/hour and paralegals and law clerks | |||
12 | bill $142/hour. | |||
13 | The City argues that the court should applyLaffey rates | |||
14 | corresponding to the year in which the work was completed rather | |||
15 | than current rates. Because this litigation has lasted since 2000 | |||
16 | and attorney rates have increased each year since that time, | |||
17 | applyingLaffey rates applicable at the time the work was completed | |||
18 | would result in lower rates. | |||
19 | The court finds, however, that applying present rates to | |||
20 | all work done over the course of the litigation is more reasonable. | |||
21 | See generallyYoung v Polo Retail, LLC, 2007 WL 951821 at *6 (ND | |||
22 | Cal, Mar 28, 2007). Applying present rates simplifies the | |||
23 | calculation and accounts for the time value of money in that the | |||
24 | attorney fees were not paid contemporaneously with the work. See | |||
25 | Vizcaino v Microsoft Corp, 290 F3d 1043, 1051 (9th Cir 2002), | |||
26 | citingGates v Deukmejian, 987 F2d 1392, 1406 (9th Cir 1992) | |||
27 | (“Calculating fees at prevailing rates to compensate for delay in | |||
28 | receipt of payment was within the district court’s discretion.”). |
26
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 27 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | While, as the City points out, MHC’s attorneys were paid | |||
2 | contemporaneously for their work on this matter, this fact is | |||
3 | immaterial for the purposes of determining a reasonable rate at | |||
4 | which to award attorney fees after the fact. The purpose of | |||
5 | section 1988 is to allow parties to employ reasonably competent | |||
6 | counsel “without cost to themselves if they prevail.”Venegas, 495 | |||
7 | US at 86. BecauseMHC had to pay its attorney fees | |||
8 | contemporaneously and only receives compensation now, the adjusted | |||
9 | rates compensateMHC in this case for the time value of the money | |||
10 | paid during the course of the litigation. | |||
11 | Additionally, the City requests that the court reduce | |||
12 | MHC’s attorney fee award based on a so-calledHerrington | |||
13 | adjustment. SeeHerrington v County of Sonoma, 883 F2d 739, 742—33 | |||
14 | (9th Cir 1989). InHerrington, the Ninth Circuit explained that | |||
15 | where there are “special circumstances” that render a particular | |||
16 | fee award unjust, the court may depart from “the general rule that | |||
17 | prevailing parties are to be awarded fees.” Id at 744. The City | |||
18 | argues that there are special circumstances in this case warranting | |||
19 | a downward adjustment to MHC’s attorney fee award. Namely, the | |||
20 | City alludes to a statement inHerrington that a plaintiff’s | |||
21 | pursuit of a “private property right rather than a broader public | |||
22 | goal may be considered in setting the amount of fees.” Id at 746. | |||
23 | The court finds that no departure is justified here. | |||
24 | While MHC had substantial private incentives to challenge the | |||
25 | Ordinance, the issues MHC raised in this action have important | |||
26 | public policy dimensions. Further, considering the other factors | |||
27 | enumerated inHerrington, it would be inappropriate to reduce the | |||
28 | attorney fee award here. See Id at 746, citingKerr v Screen |
27
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 28 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | Extras Guild, 526 F2d 67, 70 (9th Cir 1975). This case presented | |||
2 | novel and difficult questions of law and MHC would likely not have | |||
3 | been successful without attorneys of considerable skill and | |||
4 | experience dedicating extensive time and labor to the case. These | |||
5 | facts might have caused the Ordinance to go unchallenged if there | |||
6 | were no possibility for recovery of attorney fees for the | |||
7 | prevailing party. Accordingly, the court finds the hourly rates | |||
8 | outlined above to be reasonable without any downward departure. | |||
9 | ||||
10 | D | |||
11 | Attachment 3 presents a table listing the attorneys and | |||
12 | staff MHC employed to work on this case. For each attorney and | |||
13 | staff group, the table lists the adjusted 2008-09 Laffey rate | |||
14 | (based on experience and locality as discussed supra), the total | |||
15 | hours spent on the case and the lodestar amount. The sum of the | |||
16 | lodestar amounts for all of the MHC attorney and staff hours is | |||
17 | $4,437,047.97. | |||
18 | Attachment 4 presents a similar table, but the hours | |||
19 | expended by each attorney and staff group are reduced by the number | |||
20 | of hours spent on MHC’s contract claims. The sum of the lodestar | |||
21 | amounts for the MHC attorney and staff adjusted hours is | |||
22 | $2,995,612.37. | |||
23 | Attachment 5 presents a similar chart for the City’s fee | |||
24 | request based on the attorney and staff hours the City spent | |||
25 | opposing MHC’s contract claims. The lodestar amount for the City’s | |||
26 | legal fees is $1,191,935.89. | |||
27 | // | |||
28 | // |
28
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 29 of 42
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
For the Northern District of California
1 | The City award of $1,191,935.89 offsets the MHC fee award | |||||||
2 | of $2,995,612.37. Accordingly, MHC is entitled to the remaining | |||||||
3 | $1,803,676.48 from the City. | |||||||
4 | With regard to the appropriate allocation of costs, the | |||||||
5 | parties are DIRECTED to confer to approve of an allocation and | |||||||
6 | award of costs in accordance with the prevailing party | |||||||
7 | determination made herein if they can do so. Hence, Doc #579 and | |||||||
8 | Doc #586 are TERMINATED. If the parties are unable to reach | |||||||
9 | agreement, they shall inform the court, which will refer the matter | |||||||
10 | to the chief magistrate judge or his designee, pursuant to 28 USC § | |||||||
11 | 636. | |||||||
12 | ||||||||
13 | ||||||||
14 | IT IS SO ORDERED. | |||||||
15 | ||||||||
16 | ||||||||
17 | VAUGHN R WALKER | |||||||
United States District Chief Judge | ||||||||
18 | ||||||||
19 | ||||||||
20 | ||||||||
21 | ||||||||
22 | ||||||||
23 | ||||||||
24 | ||||||||
25 | ||||||||
26 | ||||||||
27 |
29
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 30 of 42
Attachment 1
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 31 of 42
LAFFEY MATRIX 2003-2009
Experience | 03-04 | 04-05 | 05-06 | 06-07 | 07-08 | 08-09 | ||||||||||||||||||
20+ years | 380 | 390 | 405 | 425 | 440 | 465 | ||||||||||||||||||
11-19 years | 335 | 345 | 360 | 375 | 390 | 410 | ||||||||||||||||||
8-10 years | 270 | 280 | 290 | 305 | 315 | 330 | ||||||||||||||||||
4-7 years | 220 | 225 | 235 | 245 | 255 | 270 | ||||||||||||||||||
1-3 years | 180 | 185 | 195 | 205 | 215 | 225 | ||||||||||||||||||
Paralegals & Law Clerks | 105 | 110 | 115 | 120 | 125 | 130 | ||||||||||||||||||
Years (Rate for June 1 — May 31, based on prior year’s CPI-U)
Explanatory Notes
1. | This matrix of hourly rates for attorneys of varying experience levels and paralegals/law clerks has been prepared by the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. The matrix is intended to be used in cases in which a “fee-shifting” statute permits the prevailing party to recover “reasonable” attorney’s fees.See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k) (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E) (Freedom of Information Act); 28 U.S.C. § 2412 (b) (Equal Access to Justice Act). The matrix does not apply in cases in which the hourly rate is limited by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d). | ||
2. | This matrix is based on the hourly rates allowed by the District Court inLaffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983),aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 746 F.2d 4 (D.C. Cir. 1984),cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1021 (1985). It is commonly referred to by attorneys and federal judges in the District of Columbia as the “Laffey Matrix” or the “United States Attorney’s Office Matrix.” The column headed “Experience” refers to the years following the attorney’s graduation from law school. The various “brackets” are intended to correspond to “junior associates” (1-3 years after law school graduation), “senior associates” (4-7 years), “experienced federal court litigators” (8-10 and 11-19 years), and “very experienced federal court litigators” (20 years or more).See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371. | ||
3. | The hourly rates approved by the District Court inLaffeywere for work done principally in 1981-82. The Matrix begins with those rates.See Laffey, 572 F. Supp. at 371 (attorney rates) & 386 n.74 (paralegal and law clerk rate). The rates for subsequent yearly periods were determined by adding the change in the cost of living for the Washington, D.C. area to the applicable rate for the prior year, and then rounding to the nearest multiple of $5 (up if within $3 of the next multiple of $5). The result is subject to adjustment if appropriate to ensure that the relationship between the highest rate and the lower rates remains reasonably constant. Changes in the cost of living are measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV, as announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for May of each year. | ||
4. | Use of an updatedLaffeyMatrix was implicitly endorsed by the Court of Appeals inSave Our Cumberland Mountains v. Hodel, 857 F.2d 1516, 1525 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). The Court of Appeals subsequently stated that parties may rely on the updatedLaffeyMatrix prepared by the United States Attorney’s Office as evidence of prevailing market rates for litigation counsel in the Washington, D.C. area. SeeCovington v. District of Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1105 & n. 14, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1995),cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1115 (1996). Lower federal courts in the District of Columbia have used this updatedLaffeyMatrix when determining whether fee awards under fee-shifting statutes are reasonable.See, e.g.,Blackman v. District of Columbia, 59 F. Supp. 2d 37, 43 (D.D.C. 1999);Jefferson v. Milvets System Technology, Inc., 986 F. Supp. 6, 11 (D.D.C. 1997);Ralph Hoar & Associates v. Nat’l Highway Transportation Safety Admin., 985 F. Supp. 1, 9-10 n.3 (D.D.C. 1997);Martini v. Fed. Nat’l Mtg Ass’n, 977 F. Supp. 482, 485 n.2 (D.D.C. 1997);Park v. Howard University, 881 F. Supp. 653, 654 (D.D.C. 1995). |
Department of Justice | USAGov | USA | Privacy Policy | PSN | PSN Grants | www.regulations.gov | Legal Policies and Disclaimers | DOJ/Kids |
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 32 of 42
Attachment 2
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 33 of 42
SALARY TABLE 2008-CHI
INCORPORATING THE 2.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 23.16%
FOR THE LOCALITY PAY AREA OF CHICAGO-NAPERVILLE-MICHIGAN CITY, IL-IN-WI
(See http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/locdef.asp for definitions of locality pay areas.)
(TOTAL INCREASE: 3.65%)
INCORPORATING THE 2.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 23.16%
FOR THE LOCALITY PAY AREA OF CHICAGO-NAPERVILLE-MICHIGAN CITY, IL-IN-WI
(See http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/locdef.asp for definitions of locality pay areas.)
(TOTAL INCREASE: 3.65%)
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2008
Hourly Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step
Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step
Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step
Grade | B/0 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | Step 5 | Step 6 | Step 7 | Step 8 | Step 9 | Step 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | B | $ | 10.06 | $ | 10.40 | $ | 10.73 | $ | 11.06 | $ | 11.40 | $ | 11.59 | $ | 11.92 | $ | 12.26 | $ | 12.27 | $ | 12.58 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 15.09 | 15.60 | 16.10 | 16.59 | 17.10 | 17.39 | 17.88 | 18.39 | 18.41 | 18.87 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | B | 11.31 | 11.58 | 11.95 | 12.27 | 12.41 | 12.77 | 13.14 | 13.50 | 13.87 | 14.23 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 16.97 | 17.37 | 17.93 | 18.41 | 18.62 | 19.16 | 19.71 | 20.25 | 20.81 | 21.35 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | B | 12.34 | 12.75 | 13.16 | 13.57 | 13.99 | 14.40 | 14.81 | 15.22 | 15.63 | 16.04 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 18.51 | 19.13 | 19.74 | 20.36 | 20.99 | 21.60 | 22.22 | 22.83 | 23.45 | 24.06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | B | 13.85 | 14.32 | 14.78 | 15.24 | 15.70 | 16.16 | 16.63 | 17.09 | 17.55 | 18.01 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 20.78 | 21.48 | 22.17 | 22.86 | 23.55 | 24.24 | 24.95 | 25.64 | 26.33 | 27.02 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | B | 15.50 | 16.02 | 16.53 | 17.05 | 17.56 | 18.08 | 18.60 | 19.11 | 19.63 | 20.15 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 23.25 | 24.03 | 24.80 | 25.58 | 26.34 | 27.12 | 27.90 | 28.67 | 29.45 | 30.23 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | B | 17.28 | 17.85 | 18.43 | 19.00 | 19.58 | 20.16 | 20.73 | 21.31 | 21.88 | 22.46 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 25.92 | 26.78 | 27.65 | 28.50 | 29.37 | 30.24 | 31.10 | 31.97 | 32.82 | 33.69 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | B | 19.20 | 19.84 | 20.48 | 21.12 | 21.76 | 22.40 | 23.04 | 23.68 | 24.32 | 24.96 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 28.80 | 29.76 | 30.72 | 31.68 | 32.64 | 33.60 | 34.56 | 35.52 | 36.48 | 37.44 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | B | 21.26 | 21.97 | 22.68 | 23.39 | 24.10 | 24.81 | 25.51 | 26.22 | 26.93 | 27.64 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 31.89 | 32.96 | 34.02 | 35.09 | 36.15 | 37.22 | 38.27 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | B | 23.48 | 24.27 | 25.05 | 25.83 | 26.62 | 27.40 | 28.18 | 28.97 | 29.75 | 30.53 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 35.22 | 36.41 | 37.58 | 38.75 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | B | 25.86 | 26.72 | 27.59 | 28.45 | 29.31 | 30.17 | 31.03 | 31.90 | 32.76 | 33.62 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | B | 28.41 | 29.36 | 30.31 | 31.25 | 32.20 | 33.15 | 34.10 | 35.04 | 35.99 | 36.94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | B | 34.06 | 35.19 | 36.33 | 37.46 | 38.60 | 39.73 | 40.87 | 42.00 | 43.14 | 44.27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 38.79 | 39.73 | 40.87 | 42.00 | 43.14 | 44.27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | B | 40.50 | 41.85 | 43.20 | 44.55 | 45.90 | 47.25 | 48.60 | 49.95 | 51.30 | 52.65 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 40.50 | 41.85 | 43.20 | 44.55 | 45.90 | 47.25 | 48.60 | 49.95 | 51.30 | 52.65 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | B | 47.86 | 49.45 | 51.05 | 52.64 | 54.24 | 55.83 | 57.43 | 59.02 | 60.62 | 62.21 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 47.86 | 49.45 | 51.05 | 52.64 | 54.24 | 55.83 | 57.43 | 59.02 | 60.62 | 62.21 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | B | 56.29 | 58.17 | 60.05 | 61.92 | 63.80 | 65.68 | 67.55 | 69.43 | 71.31 | 71.39 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 56.29 | 58.17 | 60.05 | 61.92 | 63.80 | 65.68 | 67.55 | 69.43 | 71.31 | 71.39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 34 of 42
SALARY TABLE 2008-LA
INCORPORATING THE 2.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 25.26%
FOR THE LOCALITY PAY AREA OF LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-RIVERSIDE, CA
(See http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/locdef.asp for definitions of locality pay areas.)
(TOTAL INCREASE: 3.52%)
INCORPORATING THE 2.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 25.26%
FOR THE LOCALITY PAY AREA OF LOS ANGELES-LONG BEACH-RIVERSIDE, CA
(See http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/locdef.asp for definitions of locality pay areas.)
(TOTAL INCREASE: 3.52%)
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2008
Hourly Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step
Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step
Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step
Grade | B/0 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | Step 5 | Step 6 | Step 7 | Step 8 | Step 9 | Step 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | B | $ | 10.23 | $ | 10.57 | $ | 10.91 | $ | 11.25 | $ | 11.59 | $ | 11.79 | $ | 12.13 | $ | 12.47 | $ | 12.48 | $ | 12.80 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 15.35 | 15.86 | 16.37 | 16.88 | 17.39 | 17.69 | 18.20 | 18.71 | 18.72 | 19.20 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | B | 11.50 | 11.78 | 12.16 | 12.48 | 12.62 | 12.99 | 13.36 | 13.73 | 14.10 | 14.47 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 17.25 | 17.67 | 18.24 | 18.72 | 18.93 | 19.49 | 20.04 | 20.60 | 21.15 | 21.71 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | B | 12.55 | 12.97 | 13.39 | 13.81 | 14.22 | 14.64 | 15.06 | 15.48 | 15.90 | 16.32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 18.83 | 19.46 | 20.09 | 20.72 | 21.33 | 21.96 | 22.59 | 23.22 | 23.85 | 24.48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | B | 14.09 | 14.56 | 15.03 | 15.50 | 15.97 | 16.44 | 16.91 | 17.38 | 17.85 | 18.32 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 21.14 | 21.84 | 22.55 | 23.25 | 23.96 | 24.66 | 25.37 | 26.07 | 26.78 | 27.48 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | B | 15.76 | 16.29 | 16.81 | 17.34 | 17.86 | 18.39 | 18.91 | 19.44 | 19.96 | 20.49 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 23.64 | 24.44 | 25.22 | 26.01 | 26.79 | 27.59 | 28.37 | 29.16 | 29.94 | 30.74 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | B | 17.57 | 18.16 | 18.74 | 19.33 | 19.91 | 20.50 | 21.09 | 21.67 | 22.26 | 22.84 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 26.36 | 27.24 | 28.11 | 29.00 | 29.87 | 30.75 | 31.64 | 32.51 | 33.39 | 34.26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | B | 19.53 | 20.18 | 20.83 | 21.48 | 22.13 | 22.78 | 23.43 | 24.08 | 24.73 | 25.38 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 29.30 | 30.27 | 31.25 | 32.22 | 33.20 | 34.17 | 35.15 | 36.12 | 37.10 | 38.07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | B | 21.62 | 22.35 | 23.07 | 23.79 | 24.51 | 25.23 | 25.95 | 26.67 | 27.39 | 28.11 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 32.43 | 33.53 | 34.61 | 35.69 | 36.77 | 37.85 | 38.93 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | B | 23.88 | 24.68 | 25.48 | 26.27 | 27.07 | 27.87 | 28.66 | 29.46 | 30.26 | 31.05 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 35.82 | 37.02 | 38.22 | 39.41 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | B | 26.30 | 27.18 | 28.06 | 28.93 | 29.81 | 30.69 | 31.56 | 32.44 | 33.32 | 34.19 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | B | 28.90 | 29.86 | 30.82 | 31.79 | 32.75 | 33.71 | 34.68 | 35.64 | 36.60 | 37.57 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | B | 34.64 | 35.79 | 36.95 | 38.10 | 39.26 | 40.41 | 41.56 | 42.72 | 43.87 | 45.03 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 39.45 | 40.41 | 41.56 | 42.72 | 43.87 | 45.03 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | B | 41.19 | 42.56 | 43.93 | 45.31 | 46.68 | 48.05 | 49.43 | 50.80 | 52.17 | 53.55 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 41.19 | 42.56 | 43.93 | 45.31 | 46.68 | 48.05 | 49.43 | 50.80 | 52.17 | 53.55 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | B | 48.67 | 50.29 | 51.92 | 53.54 | 55.16 | 56.78 | 58.41 | 60.03 | 61.65 | 63.27 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 48.67 | 50.29 | 51.92 | 53.54 | 55.16 | 56.78 | 58.41 | 60.03 | 61.65 | 63.27 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | B | 57.25 | 59.16 | 61.07 | 62.98 | 64.89 | 66.80 | 68.70 | 70.61 | 71.39 | 71.39 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 57.25 | 59.16 | 61.07 | 62.98 | 64.89 | 66.80 | 68.70 | 70.61 | 71.39 | 71.39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 35 of 42
SALARY TABLE 2008-SF
INCORPORATING THE 2.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 32.53%
FOR THE LOCALITY PAY AREA OF SAN JOSE-SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND, CA
(See http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/locdef.asp for definitions of locality pay areas.)
(TOTAL INCREASE: 4.23%)
INCORPORATING THE 2.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 32.53%
FOR THE LOCALITY PAY AREA OF SAN JOSE-SAN FRANCISCO-OAKLAND, CA
(See http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/locdef.asp for definitions of locality pay areas.)
(TOTAL INCREASE: 4.23%)
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2008
Hourly Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step
Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step
Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step
Grade | B/0 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | Step 5 | Step 6 | Step 7 | Step 8 | Step 9 | Step 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | B | $ | 10.82 | $ | 11.19 | $ | 11.55 | $ | 11.90 | $ | 12.26 | $ | 12.48 | $ | 12.83 | $ | 13.19 | $ | 13.20 | $ | 13.54 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 16.23 | 16.79 | 17.33 | 17.85 | 18.39 | 18.72 | 19.25 | 19.79 | 19.80 | 20.31 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | B | 12.17 | 12.46 | 12.86 | 13.20 | 13.35 | 13.74 | 14.14 | 14.53 | 14.92 | 15.31 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 18.26 | 18.69 | 19.29 | 19.80 | 20.03 | 20.61 | 21.21 | 21.80 | 22.38 | 22.97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | B | 13.28 | 13.72 | 14.16 | 14.61 | 15.05 | 15.49 | 15.93 | 16.38 | 16.82 | 17.26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 19.92 | 20.58 | 21.24 | 21.92 | 22.58 | 23.24 | 23.90 | 24.57 | 25.23 | 25.89 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | B | 14.91 | 15.40 | 15.90 | 16.40 | 16.90 | 17.39 | 17.89 | 18.39 | 18.89 | 19.38 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 22.37 | 23.10 | 23.85 | 24.60 | 25.35 | 26.09 | 26.84 | 27.59 | 28.34 | 29.07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | B | 16.68 | 17.23 | 17.79 | 18.35 | 18.90 | 19.46 | 20.01 | 20.57 | 21.12 | 21.68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 25.02 | 25.85 | 26.69 | 27.53 | 28.35 | 29.19 | 30.02 | 30.86 | 31.68 | 32.52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | B | 18.59 | 19.21 | 19.83 | 20.45 | 21.07 | 21.69 | 22.31 | 22.93 | 23.55 | 24.17 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 27.89 | 28.82 | 29.75 | 30.68 | 31.61 | 32.54 | 33.47 | 34.40 | 35.33 | 36.26 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | B | 20.66 | 21.35 | 22.04 | 22.72 | 23.41 | 24.10 | 24.79 | 25.48 | 26.17 | 26.86 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 30.99 | 32.03 | 33.06 | 34.08 | 35.12 | 36.15 | 37.19 | 38.22 | 39.26 | 40.29 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | B | 22.88 | 23.64 | 24.41 | 25.17 | 25.93 | 26.69 | 27.46 | 28.22 | 28.98 | 29.74 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 34.32 | 35.46 | 36.62 | 37.76 | 38.90 | 40.04 | 41.19 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | B | 25.27 | 26.11 | 26.96 | 27.80 | 28.64 | 29.48 | 30.33 | 31.17 | 32.01 | 32.85 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 37.91 | 39.17 | 40.44 | 41.70 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | B | 27.83 | 28.76 | 29.68 | 30.61 | 31.54 | 32.47 | 33.40 | 34.32 | 35.25 | 36.18 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | B | 30.58 | 31.59 | 32.61 | 33.63 | 34.65 | 35.67 | 36.69 | 37.71 | 38.73 | 39.75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | B | 36.65 | 37.87 | 39.09 | 40.31 | 41.53 | 42.76 | 43.98 | 45.20 | 46.42 | 47.64 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 41.75 | 42.76 | 43.98 | 45.20 | 46.42 | 47.64 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | B | 43.58 | 45.03 | 46.48 | 47.94 | 49.39 | 50.84 | 52.30 | 53.75 | 55.20 | 56.66 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 43.58 | 45.03 | 46.48 | 47.94 | 49.39 | 50.84 | 52.30 | 53.75 | 55.20 | 56.66 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | B | 51.50 | 53.21 | 54.93 | 56.65 | 58.36 | 60.08 | 61.79 | 63.51 | 65.23 | 66.94 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 51.50 | 53.21 | 54.93 | 56.65 | 58.36 | 60.08 | 61.79 | 63.51 | 65.23 | 66.94 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | B | 60.57 | 62.59 | 64.61 | 66.63 | 68.65 | 70.67 | 71.39 | 71.39 | 71.39 | 71.39 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 60.57 | 62.59 | 64.61 | 66.63 | 68.65 | 70.67 | 71.39 | 71.39 | 71.39 | 71.39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 36 of 42
SALARY TABLE 2008-DCB
INCORPORATING THE 2.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 20.89%
FOR THE LOCALITY PAY AREA OF WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE-NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA
(See http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/locdef.asp for definitions of locality pay areas.)
(TOTAL INCREASE: 4.49%)
INCORPORATING THE 2.50% GENERAL SCHEDULE INCREASE AND A LOCALITY PAYMENT OF 20.89%
FOR THE LOCALITY PAY AREA OF WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE-NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA
(See http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/locdef.asp for definitions of locality pay areas.)
(TOTAL INCREASE: 4.49%)
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2008
Hourly Basic (B) Rates by Grade and Step
Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step
Hourly Overtime (O) Rates by Grade and Step
Grade | B/0 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | Step 5 | Step 6 | Step 7 | Step 8 | Step 9 | Step 10 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 | B | $ | 9.87 | $ | 10.20 | $ | 10.53 | $ | 10.86 | $ | 11.19 | $ | 11.38 | $ | 11.70 | $ | 12.03 | $ | 12.04 | $ | 12.35 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 14.81 | 15.30 | 15.80 | 16.29 | 16.79 | 17.07 | 17.55 | 18.05 | 18.06 | 18.53 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | B | 11.10 | 11.37 | 11.73 | 12.04 | 12.18 | 12.54 | 12.89 | 13.25 | 13.61 | 13.97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 16.65 | 17.06 | 17.60 | 18.06 | 18.27 | 18.81 | 19.34 | 19.88 | 20.42 | 20.96 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | B | 12.11 | 12.52 | 12.92 | 13.32 | 13.73 | 14.13 | 14.54 | 14.94 | 15.34 | 15.75 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 18.17 | 18.78 | 19.38 | 19.98 | 20.60 | 21.20 | 21.81 | 22.41 | 23.01 | 23.63 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | B | 13.60 | 14.05 | 14.51 | 14.96 | 15.41 | 15.87 | 16.32 | 16.77 | 17.23 | 17.68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 20.40 | 21.08 | 21.77 | 22.44 | 23.12 | 23.81 | 24.48 | 25.16 | 25.85 | 26.52 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | B | 15.21 | 15.72 | 16.23 | 16.73 | 17.24 | 17.75 | 18.25 | 18.76 | 19.27 | 19.78 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 22.82 | 23.58 | 24.35 | 25.10 | 25.86 | 26.63 | 27.38 | 28.14 | 28.91 | 29.67 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | B | 16.96 | 17.52 | 18.09 | 18.65 | 19.22 | 19.78 | 20.35 | 20.92 | 21.48 | 22.05 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 25.44 | 26.28 | 27.14 | 27.98 | 28.83 | 29.67 | 30.53 | 31.38 | 32.22 | 33.08 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | B | 18.85 | 19.47 | 20.10 | 20.73 | 21.36 | 21.99 | 22.61 | 23.24 | 23.87 | 24.50 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 28.28 | 29.21 | 30.15 | 31.10 | 32.04 | 32.99 | 33.92 | 34.86 | 35.81 | 36.75 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | B | 20.87 | 21.57 | 22.26 | 22.96 | 23.65 | 24.35 | 25.04 | 25.74 | 26.44 | 27.13 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 31.31 | 32.36 | 33.39 | 34.44 | 35.48 | 36.53 | 37.56 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | B | 23.05 | 23.82 | 24.59 | 25.36 | 26.13 | 26.89 | 27.66 | 28.43 | 29.20 | 29.97 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 34.58 | 35.73 | 36.89 | 38.04 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | B | 25.39 | 26.23 | 27.08 | 27.92 | 28.77 | 29.62 | 30.46 | 31.31 | 32.16 | 33.00 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | B | 27.89 | 28.82 | 29.75 | 30.68 | 31.61 | 32.54 | 33.47 | 34.40 | 35.33 | 36.26 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | B | 33.43 | 34.54 | 35.66 | 36.77 | 37.89 | 39.00 | 40.11 | 41.23 | 42.34 | 43.46 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 38.09 | 39.00 | 40.11 | 41.23 | 42.34 | 43.46 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
13 | B | 39.75 | 41.08 | 42.40 | 43.73 | 45.05 | 46.38 | 47.70 | 49.03 | 50.35 | 51.68 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 39.75 | 41.08 | 42.40 | 43.73 | 45.05 | 46.38 | 47.70 | 49.03 | 50.35 | 51.68 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
14 | B | 46.97 | 48.54 | 50.10 | 51.67 | 53.24 | 54.80 | 56.37 | 57.93 | 59.50 | 61.06 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 46.97 | 48.54 | 50.10 | 51.67 | 53.24 | 54.80 | 56.37 | 57.93 | 59.50 | 61.06 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
15 | B | 55.25 | 57.10 | 58.94 | 60.78 | 62.62 | 64.46 | 66.31 | 68.15 | 69.99 | 71.39 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
O | 55.25 | 57.10 | 58.94 | 60.78 | 62.62 | 64.46 | 66.31 | 68.15 | 69.99 | 71.39 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 37 of 42
Attachment 3
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 38 of 42
MHC Attorney Hours at 2008-09 Locality-AdjustedLaffey Rates*
2008-09 Laffey | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attorney | Locality | Experience | Rate (per hour) | Total Hours | Lodestar | ||||||||||||||||||||
David Bradford | Chicago | 32 | 473 | 2,120.5 | $ | 1,003,781.09 | |||||||||||||||||||
Lisa Scruggs | Chicago | 10 | 336 | 2,636.25 | $ | 885,621.83 | |||||||||||||||||||
Bradley Yusim | Chicago | 6 | 275 | 680.75 | $ | 187,110.95 | |||||||||||||||||||
Barry Levenstam | Chicago | 30 | 473 | 27.5 | $ | 13,017.68 | |||||||||||||||||||
Terry Mascherin | Chicago | 24 | 473 | 2 | $ | 946.74 | |||||||||||||||||||
Mark Heilbrun | Chicago | 18 | 417 | 14 | $ | 5,843.32 | |||||||||||||||||||
Matt Basil | Chicago | 11 | 417 | 241.75 | $ | 100,901.62 | |||||||||||||||||||
Sean Herring | Chicago | 3 | 229 | 106.75 | $ | 24,451.09 | |||||||||||||||||||
Jason Green | Chicago | 6 | 275 | 254.5 | $ | 69,951.87 | |||||||||||||||||||
April Otterberg | Chicago | 2 | 229 | 17.75 | $ | 4,065.64 | |||||||||||||||||||
Shannon Jones | Chicago | 2 | 229 | 7 | $ | 1,603.00 | |||||||||||||||||||
Benjamin Weinberg | Chicago | 15 | 417 | 1,170.75 | $ | 488,647.64 | |||||||||||||||||||
Christine Miller | Chicago | 11 | 417 | 125.5 | $ | 52,381.19 | |||||||||||||||||||
Therese Tully | Chicago | 12 | 417 | 135 | $ | 56,346.30 | |||||||||||||||||||
Nanci Rogers | Chicago | 7 | 275 | 1,031.75 | $ | 283,586.81 | |||||||||||||||||||
Daniel Konieczny | Chicago | 7 | 275 | 1,012.75 | $ | 278,364.47 | |||||||||||||||||||
Katherine Saunders | Chicago | 9 | 336 | 170.25 | $ | 57,193.79 | |||||||||||||||||||
Hannah Stotland | Chicago | 6 | 275 | 19.75 | $ | 5,428.49 | |||||||||||||||||||
Robert S Coldren | Santa Ana | 30 | 510 | 245.3 | $ | 118,170.82 | |||||||||||||||||||
C William Dahlin | Santa Ana | 29 | 510 | 253.4 | $ | 122,072.92 | |||||||||||||||||||
Mark Alpert | Santa Ana | 20 | 510 | 15.5 | $ | 7,466.97 | |||||||||||||||||||
Robert Mulvihill | Santa Ana | 24 | 510 | 15.9 | $ | 7,659.67 | |||||||||||||||||||
Robert Williamson | Santa Ana | 32 | 510 | 24.7 | $ | 11,898.98 | |||||||||||||||||||
William Hart | Santa Ana | 32 | 510 | 0.4 | $ | 192.70 | |||||||||||||||||||
Andrew Sussman | Santa Ana | 25 | 510 | 20.7 | $ | 9,972.02 | |||||||||||||||||||
Scott Shintani | Santa Ana | 11 | 449 | 0.5 | $ | 212.38 | |||||||||||||||||||
Steven Lowery | Santa Ana | 11 | 449 | 1.2 | $ | 509.71 | |||||||||||||||||||
Diane Haugeberg | Santa Ana | 11 | 449 | 5.7 | $ | 1,948.72 | |||||||||||||||||||
Jason Pyrz | Santa Ana | 11 | 449 | 18.5 | $ | 5,174.82 | |||||||||||||||||||
Kenneth Keller | San Francisco | 32 | 482 | 277.1 | $ | 141,221.24 | |||||||||||||||||||
Michael Lisi | San Francisco | 12 | 425 | 0.7 | $ | 314.55 | |||||||||||||||||||
Ingrid Leverett | San Francisco | 18 | 425 | 106.7 | $ | 47,946.71 | |||||||||||||||||||
Chicago Paralegals** | Chicago | 0 | 132 | 3171 | $ | 418,572.00 | |||||||||||||||||||
Santa Ana Paralegals | Santa Ana | 0 | 135 | 15.7 | $ | 2,119.50 | |||||||||||||||||||
SF Paralegals | San Francisco | 0 | 142 | 157.4 | $ | 22,350.80 | |||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL | 14,104.9 | 4,437,047.97 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
* | Attorney and experience obtained from Doc #585, Exh E. Total hours obtained from Doc #600, Exh 2. 2008-09Laffey Rate (per hour) derived from Attachment 1 using the multipliers for localities of Chicago (0.018), Santa Ana, Ca (0.036) and San Francisco, CA (0.096). See supra at21-22 and n1-n3. | |
** | Chicago paralegal hours include summer associate hours listed in Doc #585, Exh E.2. |
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 39 of 42
Attachment 4
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 40 of 42
MHC Attorney Hours on Non-Contract Claims at 2008-09 Locality-AdjustedLaffey Rates*
2008-09 Laffey | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attorney | Locality | Experience | Rate (per hour) | Total Hours | Lodestar | ||||||||||||||||||||
David Bradford | Chicago | 32 | 473 | 1,543.75 | $ | 730,764.94 | |||||||||||||||||||
Lisa Scruggs | Chicago | 10 | 336 | 2,003 | $ | 672,887.82 | |||||||||||||||||||
Bradley Yusim | Chicago | 6 | 275 | 361 | $ | 99,224.46 | |||||||||||||||||||
Barry Levenstam | Chicago | 30 | 473 | 27.5 | $ | 13,017.68 | |||||||||||||||||||
Terry Mascherin | Chicago | 24 | 473 | 2 | $ | 946.74 | |||||||||||||||||||
Mark Heilbrun | Chicago | 18 | 417 | 14 | $ | 5,843.32 | |||||||||||||||||||
Matt Basil | Chicago | 11 | 417 | 4.5 | $ | 1,878.21 | |||||||||||||||||||
Sean Herring | Chicago | 3 | 229 | 106.75 | $ | 24,451.09 | |||||||||||||||||||
Jason Green | Chicago | 6 | 275 | 73 | $ | 20,064.78 | |||||||||||||||||||
April Otterberg | Chicago | 2 | 229 | 17.75 | $ | 4,065.64 | |||||||||||||||||||
Shannon Jones | Chicago | 2 | 229 | 7 | $ | 1,603.00 | |||||||||||||||||||
Benjamin Weinberg | Chicago | 15 | 417 | 646.5 | $ | 269,836.17 | |||||||||||||||||||
Christine Miller | Chicago | 11 | 417 | 125.5 | $ | 52,381.19 | |||||||||||||||||||
Therese Tully | Chicago | 12 | 417 | 135 | $ | 56,346.30 | |||||||||||||||||||
Nanci Rogers | Chicago | 7 | 275 | 654.5 | $ | 179,895.87 | |||||||||||||||||||
Daniel Konieczny | Chicago | 7 | 275 | 613.5 | $ | 168,626.61 | |||||||||||||||||||
Katherine Saunders | Chicago | 9 | 336 | 46 | $ | 15,453.24 | |||||||||||||||||||
Hannah Stotland | Chicago | 6 | 275 | 19.75 | $ | 5,428.49 | |||||||||||||||||||
Robert S Coldren | Santa Ana | 30 | 510 | 171.5 | $ | 82,618.41 | |||||||||||||||||||
C William Dahlin | Santa Ana | 29 | 510 | 194 | $ | 93,457.56 | |||||||||||||||||||
Mark Alpert | Santa Ana | 20 | 510 | 4.8 | $ | 2,312.35 | |||||||||||||||||||
Robert Mulvihill | Santa Ana | 24 | 510 | 15.9 | $ | 7,659.67 | |||||||||||||||||||
Robert Williamson | Santa Ana | 32 | 510 | 0 | $ | 0.00 | |||||||||||||||||||
William Hart | Santa Ana | 32 | 510 | 0 | $ | 0.00 | |||||||||||||||||||
Andrew Sussman | Santa Ana | 25 | 510 | 20.7 | $ | 9,972.02 | |||||||||||||||||||
Scott Shintani | Santa Ana | 11 | 449 | 0.5 | $ | 212.38 | |||||||||||||||||||
Steven Lowery | Santa Ana | 11 | 449 | 1.2 | $ | 509.71 | |||||||||||||||||||
Diane Haugeberg | Santa Ana | 11 | 449 | 5.7 | $ | 1,948.72 | |||||||||||||||||||
Jason Pyrz | Santa Ana | 11 | 449 | 18.5 | $ | 5,174.82 | |||||||||||||||||||
Kenneth Keller | San Francisco | 32 | 482 | 18.9 | $ | 9,632.20 | |||||||||||||||||||
Michael Lisi | San Francisco | 12 | 425 | 0.7 | $ | 314.55 | |||||||||||||||||||
Ingrid Leverett | San Francisco | 18 | 425 | 35.7 | $ | 16,042.15 | |||||||||||||||||||
Chicago Paralegals** | Chicago | 0 | 132 | 3171 | $ | 418,572.00 | |||||||||||||||||||
Santa Ana Paralegals | Santa Ana | 0 | 135 | 15.7 | $ | 2,119.50 | |||||||||||||||||||
SF Paralegals | San Francisco | 0 | 142 | 157.4 | $ | 22,350.80 | |||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL | 10,233.2 | $ | 2,995,612.37 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
* | Attorney and experience obtained from Doc #585, Exh E. Hours obtained by subtracting hours worked on contract claims (Doc #610 at 11) from total hours worked on the case (Doc#610, Exh S-1 at 12; Attachment 3). 2008-09Laffey Rate (per hour) derived from Attachment 1 using the multipliers for localities of Chicago (0.018), Santa Ana, Ca (0.036) and San Francisco, CA (0.096). See supra at 25 and n1-n3. | |
** | Chicago paralegal hours include summer associate hours listed in Doc #585, Exh E.2. |
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 41 of 42
Attachment 5
Case 3:00-cv-03785-VRW Document 613 Filed 04/17/2009 Page 42 of 42
City of San Rafael Attorney Hours on Contract Claim at 2008-09 San Francisco Locality-
Adjusted Laffey Rates*
Adjusted Laffey Rates*
2008-09Laffey | Total | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attorney | Locality | Experience | Rate (per hour) | Hours | Loadstar | ||||||||||||||||||||
H Sinclair Kerr, Jr | San Francisco | 20+ | 510 | 323.95 | $ | 165,097.88 | |||||||||||||||||||
James Wagstaffe | San Francisco | 20+ | 510 | 483.2 | $ | 246,258.05 | |||||||||||||||||||
Michael von Loewenfeldt | San Francisco | 13 | 449 | 815 | $ | 366,228.40 | |||||||||||||||||||
Rachel Sater | San Francisco | 19 | 449 | 29.6 | $ | 13,301.06 | |||||||||||||||||||
Pamela Urueta | San Francisco | 12 | 449 | 35.6 | $ | 15,997.22 | |||||||||||||||||||
Timothy Fox | San Francisco | 11 | 449 | 141.2 | $ | 63,449.63 | |||||||||||||||||||
Ivo Labar | San Francisco | 9 | 362 | 736.1 | $ | 266,232.65 | |||||||||||||||||||
Alex Grab | San Francisco | 9 | 362 | 37 | $ | 13,382.16 | |||||||||||||||||||
Paralegal | San Francisco | 0 | 142 | 294.7 | $ | 41,988.86 | |||||||||||||||||||
TOTAL | 3,683 | $ | 1,191,935.89 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
* | Attorney, experience and total hours obtained from Doc #590, Exh C. 2009Laffey Rate (per hour) derived from Attachment 1 using the multiplier for the San Francisco locality 0.096. See supra at 25 and n3. |