Leal v. Cohn et al, No. 2:2014cv01762 - Document 54 (W.D. Wash. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 46 Motion for Attorney Fees; the Court awards a total of $120,638.26 in costs and fees to plaintiff and against defendant by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (PM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 MICHAEL LEAL, 8 9 10 Plaintiff, C14-1762 TSZ v. ORDER EVERETT PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 11 Defendant. 12 13 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, 14 docket no. 46. Having reviewed the materials submitted in support of, and opposition to, 15 this motion, the Court enters the following Order. 16 17 BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff brought suit in November 2014, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the 19 Everett Public Schools’ policy regarding the distribution of literature by students violated 20 his First Amendment rights. Specifically, plaintiff challenged the requirement that 21 material be written or produced by a student, the prohibition on passing out materials at 22 23 ORDER - 1 1 times and locations other than the entrances and exits of the school building before or 2 after school, and a portion of the policy that gave school administrators discretion to 3 grant exceptions from these limitations. 4 On November 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order 5 and preliminary injunction, docket no. 8. By Minute Order dated December 2, 2014, 6 docket no. 15, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and 7 deferred ruling on his motion for preliminary injunction. Following additional briefing 8 and oral argument, by Order dated February 19, 2015, docket no. 19, the Court denied 9 plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. 10 In April 2015, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Docket nos. 11 30 & 35. Plaintiff’s motion brought only a facial challenge to the policy. Prior to 12 seeking summary judgment, plaintiff dropped his claim related to the allegation that he 13 had been prevented from open-air preaching and his as-applied challenge. Oral argument 14 on these motions was heard on May 29, 2015. Following this hearing, the Court ruled 15 that the school district’s policy was unconstitutional in part. The Court found for plaintiff 16 on his claim regarding the student written or produced requirement, and for defendant on 17 plaintiff’s claims regarding the school district’s time and location limitations and the 18 administrative exemption procedures. The Court also dismissed the individual 19 defendants, finding that they were entitled to qualified immunity. Plaintiff was awarded 20 one dollar in nominal damages, the Court severed the student written or produced 21 requirement from the policy, and expunged three suspensions from plaintiff’s record 22 related to the school district’s policy. 23 ORDER - 2 1 DISCUSSION 2 3 1. Legal Standard The Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 permits the Court to award 4 attorneys’ fees to a party that has prevailed on a claim under a number of statutes, 5 including 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 42 U.S.C. §1988(b). However, the Court “may not 6 uncritically accept a fee request.” Sealy, Inc.v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1385 7 (9th Cir. 1984). Rather, the Court must ensure that any award is reasonable. Id. 8 9 2. Lodestar Calculation “When determining a reasonable fee award, the court must start by calculating the 10 lodestar amount, which is the ‘number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation 11 multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.’” Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 12 1096, 1110 (9th Cir.) cert. denied sub nom. City of Los Angeles, Cal. v. Chaudhry, 135 S. 13 Ct. 295, 190 L. Ed. 2d 141 (2014) (quoting Hensley v. Echerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 14 (1983). This resulting figure may then be adjusted either up or down to account for a 15 number of factors, including the complexity of the issues, the skill required, and the 16 results obtained. See Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975). 17 Plaintiff has provided the following figures for the initial step of the lodestar 18 calculation: 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 3 1 2 3 4 5 Attorney Kevin Snider Rate $440 $110 (Travel) Matthew McReynolds $340 Conrad Reynoldson $290 Law Clerk Jennifer Johnson $100 Ron Suggs $100 Lily Walsh $80 Hours 160.1 6 132.5 46.2 Lodestar $70,444 $1,320 $45,050 $13,398 24 32.7 11.9 $2,400 $3,270 $952 6 a. Rates 7 The Court finds that these rates are reasonable in light of each respective 8 attorney’s experience and expertise, and the prevailing rates in the Seattle market. 9 b. Hours 10 First, the Court declines to award Mr. Snider for time spent traveling for this 11 matter. 12 Second, many of the billing entries submitted by plaintiff are vague and were 13 recorded in “block billing.”1 As a result of the vague nature of many of the entries and 14 plaintiff’s use of block billing, in many instances, it is impossible for the Court to 15 determine what aspect of the case the attorney was working on, or precisely what work 16 was being done. For instance, on May 6, 2015, Mr. McReynolds billed 4.5 hour and 17 provided only “more work on Reply/Opp” to account for this time. Pl.’s Mot. Attorney 18 Fees (docket no. 46-4) at 7. Further, plaintiff has sought fees for clerical and other non19 20 “Block billing” the tasks into single entry of time.” Cadena v. 21 Pacesetter Corp., 224isF.3d practice of “lumping multiple The NinthaCircuit has stated that district courts 1203, 1214 (10th Cir. 2000). 1 may reduce hours recorded in this manner. Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th Cir. 22 2007). 23 ORDER - 4 1 recoverable tasks. See Pl.’s Mot. Attorney Fees (docket no. 46-4) at 16 (billing 1.1 for 2 work on “obtaining estimated hours from Jennifer and Ron[.]”). Finally, as defendant 3 points out, it is also apparent that plaintiff’s motion contains a number of miscalculations 4 and inaccuracies in the computation of time. For instance, plaintiff’s motion seeks 11.9 5 hours of work for Ms. Walsh, but her billing records indicate she did only 10.9 hours of 6 work on motions, and Ms. Johnson’s hours have been rounded up from 23.9 to 24 7 without any explanation for this change. Compare Pl.’s Mot. Attorney Fees (docket no. 8 46) at 9 with Pl.’s Mot. Attorney Fees (docket no. 46-4) at 16–17. 9 10 11 In light of these issues, the Court has reduced plaintiff’s attorneys’ hours by 15%. c. Adjustment A court may adjust a fee upward or downward depending on the “results 12 obtained.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. Plaintiff has requested that the Court apply a 13 multiplier of 1.4 to increase the award due to the complexity and novelty of the issues 14 involved in this case. Conversely, defendant argues that the award should be decreased 15 in light of the fact that plaintiff proved successful on only one aspect of his suit and that a 16 majority of the portion of the policy challenged by plaintiff were upheld. 17 Where “a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product of 18 hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate 19 may be an excessive amount. This will be true even where the plaintiff’s claims [are] 20 interrelated.” Id. at 436. Here, plaintiff succeeded in having only the student written or 21 produced aspect of the policy declared unconstitutional and his three suspensions 22 expunged while the other portions of the policy were upheld. Further, plaintiff’s motions 23 ORDER - 5 1 for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were denied. However, the 2 Court does find that this case presented challenging and novel issues of constitutional 3 law. Because of these competing considerations, the Court declines to apply any 4 adjustment, up or down. 5 d. Calculation 6 The Court has computed the lodestar sum of $115,186.90, which is derived from 7 the following: 8 Attorney Rate 9 Kevin Snider Matthew McReynolds Conrad Reynoldson Law Clerk Jennifer Johnson Ron Suggs Lily Walsh 10 11 12 Lodestar $440 $340 $290 Hours after 15% reduction 136.085 112.625 39.27 $100 $100 $80 20.4 27.795 10.115 $2,040.00 $2,779.50 $809.20 $59,877.40 $38,292.50 $11,388.30 13 e. Litigation Costs 14 Plaintiff has asked for $1,719.36 in costs related to litigation this case. These 15 include airfare, hotels, meals, parking, transportation, and similar costs. The Court finds 16 these costs recoverable awards plaintiff these costs. 17 f. Fees related to Motion for Attorney Fees 18 The Court awards plaintiff $3,732 for work related to its motion for attorney’s 19 fees. 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 6 1 2 CONCLUSION 3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees, docket no. 46, is GRANTED in part and 4 DENIED in part. The Court awards a total of $120,638.26 in costs and fees to plaintiff 5 and against defendant. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated this 6th day of August, 2015. 8 A 9 10 Thomas S. Zilly United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER - 7
]]>
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.
