United States v. Moser, No. 13-55266 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseClaimant appealed the district court's fee award after he prevailed against the federal government in a civil asset forfeiture action and became entitled to an award of attorney’s fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA), 28 U.S.C. 2465(b)(1)(A). The court concluded that the district court correctly noted that the the lodestar method, which calculates a fee award by multiplying the market billing rate by the hours reasonably expended, applies to CAFRA awards even when there is a contingency agreement. The court concluded that the fee target has, through its inaction in the district court, waived any right on appeal to present new evidence to challenge the district court’s factual finding of reasonableness; nor can the target challenge the absence of an evidentiary hearing in the district court. The court concluded that the district court erred in several respects: it failed to afford claimant's rate of presumption of reasonableness; the district court entirely ignored the hourly rates discussed in the three declarations from forfeiture experts; the district court erred in finding that forfeiture work resembled criminal defense litigation; the district court erred in finding that the claimed hourly fee should be lowered because much of the work could have been delegated to associates with lower billing rates at a large law firm; and the district court erred by relying on an award almost nine years old in determining the prevailing market hourly rate. Further, the district court erred by reducing the hours claimed by over forty percent where the district court only identified 6.75 hours that it found objectionable. Finally, the district court also erred by reducing the lodestar because of the contingency fee. Accordingly, the court vacated the fee award and remanded for recalculation.
Court Description: Attorney’s Fees / Civil Forfeiture The panel vacated the district court’s order awarding attorney’s fees under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”) to a claimant who prevailed against the federal government in a civil asset forfeiture action, and remanded for recalculation of the award. The lodestar method, which calculates an attorney’s fee award by multiplying the market billing rate by the hours reasonably expended, applies to CAFRA awards even when there is a contingency agreement. The panel rejected the claimant’s argument that, by itself, the government’s failure to challenge the evidence before the district court mandated an award of the total amount requested in the attorney’s fee motion. The panel further held that the government, through its inaction in the district court, waived any right on appeal to present new evidence to challenge the district court’s factual findings of reasonableness, nor could the government challenge the absence of an evidentiary hearing in the district court. Applying these principles to claimant’s fee application, the panel held that the district court erred in several respects when it reduced the amount of claimant’s fee request. First, the district court failed to afford claimant’s
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.