United States District Court, D. Oregon
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
F. BECKERMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Abdullah Najm Abdullah Najm filed an Unopposed Motion for
Attorney Fees (ECF No. 16), requesting an award of
attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses in the
amount of $8, 882.32. For the reasons set forth below, the
district judge should grant the motion and award
attorney's fees in the amount of $8, 377.50, and costs
and expenses in the amount of $504.82, for a total award of
filed this employment discrimination and retaliation action
against defendant City of Portland on October 27, 2017. (ECF
No. 1.) On December 21, 2017, prior to filing an answer,
Defendant served on Plaintiff an offer of judgment in the
amount of $10, 001.00 plus reasonable attorney's fees and
costs incurred as of the date of the offer of judgment. (ECF
No. 12-1.) Plaintiff accepted Defendant's offer of
judgment on January 3, 2018. (ECF No. 12.)
the ‘American rule,' litigants ordinarily are
required to bear the expenses of their litigation unless a
statute or private agreement provides otherwise.”
Grove v. Wells Fargo Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577,
579 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation omitted). Here, the parties
agreed that Defendant will pay Plaintiff's reasonable
attorney's fees and costs incurred as of December 21,
calculation of a reasonable fee award begins with calculating
the lodestar figure, by multiplying the number of hours
reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly
rate. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433
(1983). “The fee applicant bears the burden of
documenting the appropriate hours expended in the litigation
and must submit evidence in support of those hours
worked.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392,
1397 (9th Cir. 1993). In determining the lodestar figure, the
court may consider the factors set forth in Kerr v.
Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.
1975). These factors include the novelty or difficulty of the
case, the preclusion of other employment, time limitations,
the amount at stake, the results obtained, and the
undesirability of the case. Id.
court must review the requested fee award for reasonableness,
even if no objection has been raised to the number of hours
billed or the hourly rate applied. See Gates, 987
F.2d at 1401 (finding that the “district court [is]
required to independently review plaintiffs' fee request
even absent defense objections”). The court
possesses “considerable discretion” in
determining the reasonableness of a fee award. Webb v.
Ada Cty., 195 F.3d 524, 526 (9th Cir. 1999).
seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $7, 470.00 for
attorney Daniel Snyder at a rate of $450/hour, and $907.50
for attorney John Burgess at a rate of $275/hour.
Reasonableness of Requested Rates
is well established that a reasonable hourly rate is
determined by looking at the prevailing rate in the relevant
community for similar work performed by attorneys of
comparable skill, experience, and reputation. Barjon v.
Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 502 (9th Cir. 1997); see also
Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 947 (9th
Cir. 2007) (district court abused its discretion in ERISA
case when it awarded attorney's fees at an hourly rate of
$250, because declarations from comparable ERISA lawyers
showed that “the market sustain[ed] a rate above $400
per hour” for comparable work). “[T]he burden is
on the fee applicant to produce satisfactory evidence-in
addition to the attorney's own affidavits-that the
requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the
community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably
comparable skill, experience and reputation.”
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 980
(9th Cir. 2008). “Affidavits of the plaintiffs'