roberts attorney fee order

8/19/2019 Roberts Attorney Fee Order

1/21

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF HAWAI I

ANDREWNAMI KI ROBERTS,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

vs.

CI TY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU;and J OHN DOES 1- 50,

Def endant s. _____________________________

)))

)))))))))

CI VI L NO. 15- 00467 ACK- RLP

FI NDI NGS AND RECOMMENDATI ON TO

GRANT I N PART AND DENY I N PARTPLAI NTI FF’ S MOTI ON FOR ATTORNEYS’FEES AND COSTS

FI NDI NGS AND RECOMMENDATI ON TO GRANT I N PART AND DENY I NPART PLAI NTI FF’ S MOTI ON FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS1

Bef or e t he Cour t i s Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on f or At t or neys’

Fees and Cost s, f i l ed on Febr uar y 4, 2016 ( “Mot i on”) . See ECF

No. 12. Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on r equest s an awar d of at t or neys’ f ees

and cost s as t he “pr evai l i ng par t y” pur suant t o 42 U. S. C.

§ 1988( b) . Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed a St at ement of Consul t at i on on

Febr uary 18, 2016. See ECF No. 19. Def endant Ci t y and Count y of

Honol ul u f i l ed i t s Opposi t i on t o t he Mot i on on Febr uar y 18, 2016,

and an Amended Opposi t i on on Februar y 19, 2016. See ECF Nos. 19,

20. 2 Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed hi s Repl y on Febr uar y 26, 2016, r equest i ng

addi t i onal at t or neys’ f ees rel at ed t o t he Repl y. See ECF No. 22.

1

Wi t hi n f our t een days af t er a par t y i s ser ved wi t h a copyof t he Fi ndi ngs and Recommendat i on, t hat part y may, pur suant t o28 U. S. C. § 636( b) ( 1) , f i l e wr i t t en obj ect i ons i n t he Uni t edSt at es Di st r i ct Cour t . A par t y must f i l e any obj ect i ons wi t hi nt he f our t een- day per i od al l owed i f t hat par t y want s t o haveappel l at e r evi ew of t he Fi ndi ngs and Recommendat i on. I f noobj ect i ons ar e f i l ed, no appel l at e r evi ew wi l l be al l owed.

2 Def endant ’ s Amended Opposi t i on cor r ect ed t he mi st akeni ncl usi on i n Exhi bi t 3 of a document i nt ended t o be Exhi bi t 2.

Case 1:15-cv-00467-ACK-RLP Document 24 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 624


2/21

I n t ot al , Pl ai nt i f f r equest s $46, 447. 63 i n at t or neys’ f ees and

$568. 40 i n cost s. Af t er car ef ul consi der at i on of t he submi ssi ons

of t he par t i es and t he r el evant l egal aut hor i t y, t he Cour t FI NDS

and RECOMMENDS t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on be GRANTED I N PART and

DENI ED I N PART.

BACKGROUND

Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed t hi s act i on under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 on

November 6, 2015, al l egi ng t hat Def endant vi ol ated hi s Second,

Four t h, and Four t eent h Amendment r i ght s by r equi r i ng permanent

r esi dent s, such as Pl ai nt i f f , t o per sonal l y obt ai n cl ear ance f r om

t hei r nat i ve count r i es i n or der t o own a f i r ear m. See ECF No. 1.

Def endant was ser ved wi t h t he Compl ai nt on November 9, 2015,

al ong wi t h a demand l et t er ( “November 9 Let t er”) . See ECF No.

12- 6 ¶¶ 7- 8, Decl . of Ri char d L. Hol comb; ECF No. 12- 10 at 2.

The November 9 Let t er i ndi cat ed t hat Pl ai nt i f f woul d be wi l l i ng

t o set t l e i f Def endant agr eed t o cease enf or ci ng i t s cl ear ance

r equi r ement s and, among other t hi ngs, pay $8, 000 i n at t orneys’

f ees and cost s. ECF No. 12- 10 at 2. The l et t er r equest ed t hat

Def endant r espond by November 13, 2015. I d. The l et t er al so

i ndi cat ed t hat Pl ai nt i f f woul d f i l e a mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on i f hi s demands wer e not met and t hat “[ f ] ur t her

demands wi l l i ncr ease as At t orneys’ Fees and cost s cont i nue t o

accrue. ” I d. Def endant di d not r espond t o t he November 9 Let t er

by November 13, 2015, as r equest ed. ECF No. 21- 1 ¶ 19, Decl . of

Cur t i s E. Sher wood. However , Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel di d exchange

2



3/21

emai l s wi t h Def endant ’ s counsel r egar di ng the Compl ai nt and the

November 9 Let t er on November 18, 2015, at whi ch t i me Def endant ’ s

counsel i ndi cat ed that he had not r ecei ved the November 9 Let t er .

ECF No. 12- 6 ¶ 13.

Pl ai nt i f f sent anot her l et t er on November 24, 2015

( “November 24 Let t er ”) . See ECF No. 12- 11. The November 24

Let t er r ei t er at ed Pl ai nt i f f ’ s or i gi nal non- monet ar y demands but

i ncr eased t he demand f or at t orneys’ f ees and cost s t o $12, 000,

i ndi cat i ng t hat Def endant ’ s i nact i on had caused t he dr af t i ng of a

mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. See i d. Pl ai nt i f f di d not

f i l e a mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. Def endant ’ s counsel

r esponded t he day af t er r ecei vi ng t he November 24 Let t er ,

i ndi cat i ng t hat he was wi l l i ng t o meet t o di scuss t he case on

December 4, 2015. See ECF No. 21- 2. Def endant f i l ed i t s Answer

t o t he Compl ai nt on December 3, 2015. See ECF No. 10. The

par t i es subsequent l y conf er r ed and t ent at i vel y agr eed t o set t l e

t he mat t er , wi t h t he except i on of at t or neys’ f ees. See ECF Nos.

12- 6 ¶ 18, 21- 1 ¶ 24.

Af t er f ur t her negot i at i ons, Pl ai nt i f f pr ovi ded

Def endant wi t h a pr oposed set t l ement agr eement by emai l on

Fr i day, December 18, 2015 ( “December 18 Emai l ”) . See ECF No. 12-

12. I n t he emai l , Pl ai nt i f f i ndi cat ed t hat i f Def endant di d not

r espond by t he f ol l owi ng Wednesday, December 23, 2015, he woul d

3



4/21

f i l e a mot i on3 on December 28, 2015. See i d. ; ECF No. 12- 6 ¶ 21.

Def endant r esponded on December 28, 2015. See ECF No. 12- 6

¶¶ 22- 24. Pl ai nt i f f di d not f i l e any mot i ons. The par t i es t hen

exchanged pr oposed set t l ement agr eement s and a f i nal set t l ement

agr eement was execut ed on J anuar y 21, 2016. See ECF Nos. 12- 6

¶¶ 28- 30, 21- 1 ¶¶ 27- 28. The set t l ement agr eement i ncl udes

substant i al l y al l of t he r el i ef r equested by Pl ai nt i f f i n hi s

Compl ai nt . Compare ECF No. 1 at 29- 30 wi t h 12- 8 at 2. A

st i pul at i on f or di smi ssal was f i l ed wi t h t he cour t on Febr uar y 8,

2016, t hr ee mont hs af t er t he Compl ai nt was f i l ed. See ECF No.

21- 1 ¶ 32; see al so ECF No. 15. Both t he set t l ement agr eement

and t he st i pul at i on t o di smi ss t he case cont empl at ed t hat t he

mat t er of at t or neys’ f ees and cost s woul d be submi t t ed t o t he

cour t . See ECF Nos. 12- 8, 15.

Pl ai nt i f f r equest s $46, 447. 63 i n at t or neys’ f ees and

$568. 40 i n cost s. See ECF Nos. 12- 1 at 36, 22 at 16. Def endant

ar gues t hat Pl ai nt i f f r equest s f ees f or hour s unr easonabl y

expended, t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s at t or neys’ f ees shoul d be r educed due

t o bl ock bi l l i ng, and t hat t he hour l y rates r equest ed ar e

unr easonabl y hi gh. See ECF No. 21. For t he r easons di scussed

bel ow, t he Cour t FI NDS and RECOMMENDS t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on be

GRANTED I N PART and DENI ED I N PART.

3 The emai l r ef er s t o the mot i on onl y as “our mot i on, ” buti t appear s t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel was r ef er r i ng t o t wo mot i ons:a mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on and a mot i on f or j udgment ont he pl eadi ngs. See ECF No. 12- 12; see al so ECF No. 12- 6 ¶¶ 22-24.

4



5/21

ANALYSI S

I. Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

Cour t s may award r easonabl e at t orneys’ f ees t o t he

“pr evai l i ng par t y” i n cer t ai n ci vi l r i ght s act i ons, i ncl udi ng

t hose br ought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. See 42 U. S. C. § 1988( b) .

A pl ai nt i f f “pr evai l s” f or t he pur poses of Sect i on 1988 “when

actual r el i ef on t he mer i t s of hi s cl ai m mat er i al l y al t er s t he

l egal r el at i onshi p bet ween t he par t i es by modi f yi ng t he

def endant ’ s behavi or i n a way that di r ect l y benef i t s t he

pl ai nt i f f . ” Far r ar v. Hobby, 506 U. S. 103, 111- 12 ( 1992) .

Rel i ef “on t he mer i t s” occur s when t he mat er i al al t er at i on of t he

par t i es’ l egal r el at i onshi p i s accompani ed by “j udi ci al

imprimatur on t he change. ” Buckhannon Bd. & Car e Home, I nc. v.

W. Va. Dep’ t of Heal t h & Human Res. , 532 U. S. 598, 605 ( 2001) .

“J udi ci al i mpr i mat ur can come i n t he f or m of an enf or ceabl e

j udgment on t he mer i t s or a cour t - or der ed consent decr ee. ”

Hi gher Tast e v. Ci t y of Tacoma, 717 F. 3d 712, 715 ( 9t h Ci r .

2013) . “I n determi ni ng whether a set t l ement agr eement conf ers a

pl ai nt i f f pr evai l i ng par t y st at us, t he cour t appl i es ‘ a

t hr ee- par t t est , l ooki ng at : ( 1) j udi ci al enf or cement ;

( 2) mat er i al al t er at i on of t he l egal r el at i onshi p bet ween t he

par t i es; and ( 3) actual r el i ef on t he mer i t s of [ t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s]

cl ai ms. ’ ” J ames v. Ci t y and Cnt y. of Honol ul u, Ci v. No. 13-

000397 J MS- BMK, 2015 WL 158895, at *5 ( D. Haw. J an 13, 2015)

( quot i ng La Asoci aci on de Tr abaj ador es de Lake For est v. Ci t y of

5



6/21

Lake For est , 624 F. 3d 1083, 1089 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) ) ( al t er at i on i n

or i gi nal ) .

Her e, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t he set t l ement agr eement

conf er r ed pr evai l i ng par t y st at us on Pl ai nt i f f . Fi r st , t he

set t l ement i s j udi ci al l y enf or ceabl e because t he par t i es agr ee

t hat Pl ai nt i f f i s ent i t l ed t o f ees and t hat t he cour t r et ai ns

j ur i sdi ct i on over t he i ssue of at t or neys’ f ees. See ECF No. 12- 8

at 4; see al so Ri char d S. v. Dep’ t of Devel opment al Ser vs. of

Cal . , 317 F. 3d 1080, 1087 ( 9t h Ci r . 2003) ( st at i ng t hat t he

di st r i ct cour t ’ s ret ent i on of j ur i sdi cti on over t he i ssue of

at t or neys’ f ees “pr ovi d[ ed] suf f i ci ent j udi ci al over si ght t o

j ust i f y an awar d of at t or neys’ f ees and cost s”) ; Bar r i os v. Cal .

I nt er schol ast i c Fed’ n, 277 F. 3d 1128, 1134 n. 5 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002)

( st at i ng t hat t her e was suf f i ci ent j udi ci al over si ght t o j ust i f y

an awar d of at t or neys’ f ees and cost s wher e t he par t i es, i n t hei r

set t l ement , agr eed t hat t he di st r i ct cour t r et ai ned j ur i sdi ct i on

over t he i ssue of at t or neys’ f ees) . Second, t he set t l ement

agr eement mat er i al l y al t er ed t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he par t i es

because i t r equi r ed Def endant t o cease enf or ci ng i t s f i r ear m

cl ear ance pr ocedur e, i mmedi at el y retur n Pl ai nt i f f ’ s f i r ear m, and

r ei nst at e and i ssue hi s f i r ear m per mi t s. See ECF No. 12- 8 at 2.

Thi r d, Pl ai nt i f f obt ai ned act ual r el i ef on t he mer i t s of hi s

cl ai ms because t he set t l ement agr eement pr ovi ded Pl ai nt i f f al l of

t he r el i ef he r equest ed i n hi s Compl ai nt . Compar e ECF No. 1 at

29- 30 wi t h 12- 8 at 2; see J ames, Ci v. No. 13- 000397 J MS- BMK, 2015

6



7/21

WL 158895, at *6 ( st at i ng t hat act ual r el i ef const i t ut es “r el i ef

t hat ser ves t he goal s of t he cl ai m i n [ pl ai nt i f f ’ s] compl ai nt ”

and t hat “an ext r emel y smal l amount of r el i ef i s suf f i ci ent ”)

( quot i ng La Asoci aci on, 624 F. 3d at 1090) . Ther ef or e, t he Cour t

f i nds t hat t he set t l ement agr eement conf er r ed pr evai l i ng par t y

st at us on Pl ai nt i f f f or t he pur poses of Sect i on 1988.

II. Calculation of Attorneys’ Fees

Cour t s use t he l odest ar met hod f or cal cul at i ng an awar d

of r easonabl e at t or neys’ f ees i n Sect i on 1983 cases. Hensl ey v.

Ecker har t , 461 U. S. 424, 433 ( 1983) ; see al so 42 U. S. C.

§ 1998( b) . A r easonabl e f ee i s det er mi ned by mul t i pl yi ng “t he

number of hour s r easonabl y expended on t he l i t i gat i on” by “a

r easonabl e hour l y r at e. ” Hensl ey, 461 U. S. at 433. Once

cal cul at ed, t he l odest ar amount i s pr esumpt i vel y r easonabl e. See

Pennsyl vani a v. Del . Val l ey Ci t i zens’ Counci l f or Cl ean Ai r , 483

U. S. 711, 728 ( 1987) . However , i n “r ar e and except i onal

ci r cumst ances, ” a cour t may deci de t o adj ust t he l odest ar f i gur e

based on an eval uat i on of sever al f act or s: t he t i me and l abor

r equi r ed, t he pr ecl usi on of other empl oyment by t he at t or ney due

t o accept ance of t he case, t he cust omar y f ee, t i me l i mi t at i ons

i mposed by the cl i ent or t he ci r cumst ances, t he “undesi r abi l i t y”

of t he case, t he nat ur e and l engt h of t he pr of essi onal

r el at i onshi p wi t h t he cl i ent , and awar ds i n si mi l ar cases. See

Ker r v. Scr een Ext r as Gui l d, I nc. , 526 F. 2d 67, 70 ( 9t h Ci r .

1975) ; Fi scher v. SJ B- P. D. , I nc . , 214 F. 3d 1115, 1119 n. 4 ( 9t h

7



8/21

Ci r . 2000) ; Mor al es v. Ci t y of San Raf ael , 96 F. 3d 359, 364 n. 9

( 9t h Ci r . 1996) ; Davi s v. Ci t y & Cnt y. of SF, 967 F. 2d 1536, 1549

( 9t h Ci r . 1992) , vacat ed i n par t on ot her gr ounds, 984 F. 2d 345

( 9t h Ci r . 1993) . The f ee shoul d be “suf f i ci ent t o i nduce a

capabl e at t or ney t o under t ake t he repr esent at i on of a mer i t or i ous

ci vi l r i ght s case. ” Per due v. Kenny A. ex r el . Wi nn, 559 U. S.

542, 552 ( 2010) . The f ee awarded shoul d hel p t o enf or ce “ci vi l

r i ght s st at ut es, not t o ‘ pr ovi de a f or m of economi c rel i ef t o

i mpr ove t he f i nanci al l ot of att or neys. ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Del .

Val l ey Ci t i zens’ Counci l , 478 U. S. at 565) .

Pl ai nt i f f r equest s at t or neys’ f ees f or wor k per f or med

by hi s t wo at t orneys and an unnamed paral egal . The t otal f ees

r equest ed f or wor k done by Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel ar e:

ATTORNEY HOURS RATE TOTAL

Ri char d L. Hol comb, Esq. 81. 5 $300. 00 $24, 450. 00

Al an Beck, Esq. 86. 4 $225. 00 $19, 440. 00

Par al egal 5. 5 $85. 00 $467. 50

Subt ot al $44, 357. 50

Gener al Exci se Tax (4. 712%) $2, 090. 13

TOTAL $46,447.634

See ECF Nos. 12- 26, 12- 27, 22- 7, 22- 8.

4

The Cour t not es t hat t hi s number di f f er s f r om t he number sr ef l ect ed i n Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on, however t he number s i n t hi schar t r ef l ect t he t ot al f ees r equest ed i n bot h Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i onand Repl y. Fur t her , Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel made a mat hemat i caler r or and i nadver t ent l y di scount ed 2. 0 hour s f r om Mr . Beck’ st i mesheet . See ECF No. 12- 27 at 1 ( t ot al hour s f or casedevel opment i s l i st ed as 7. 6 when t he hour s i n t he char t t ot al9. 6) .

8



9/21

A. Reasonable Hourly Rate

I n det er mi ni ng whet her an hour l y rat e i s r easonabl e,

t he Cour t consi der s t he exper i ence, ski l l , and r eput at i on of t he

at t orney r equest i ng f ees. See Webb v. Ada Cnt y. , 285 F. 3d 829,

840 & n. 6 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) . The r easonabl e hour l y r at e shoul d

r ef l ect t he pr evai l i ng mar ket r at es i n t he communi t y. See i d. ;

see al so Gates v. Deukmej i an, 987 F. 2d 1392, 1405 ( 9t h Ci r .

1992) , as amended on deni al of r eh’ g, ( 1993) ( not i ng t hat t he

r at e awar ded shoul d r ef l ect “t he r at es of at t or neys pr act i ci ng i n

t he f or um di st r i ct ”) . I n addi t i on t o t hei r own st at ement s,

at t or neys ar e r equi r ed t o submi t addi t i onal evi dence t hat t he

r ates charged are r easonabl e. See J ordan v. Mul t nomah Cnt y. , 815

F. 2d 1258, 1263 ( 9t h Ci r . 1987) .

Pl ai nt i f f r equest s $300 per hour f or Mr . Hol comb, an

at t or ney wi t h el even year s of exper i ence. See ECF No. 12- 6,

Decl . of Ri char d L. Hol comb. Pl ai nt i f f r equest s $225 per hour

f or Mr . Beck, an at t or ney wi t h seven year s of exper i ence. See

ECF No. 12- 7, Decl . of Al an Beck. Pl ai nt i f f pr ovi des sever al

decl ar at i ons f r om l ocal at t or neys and one decl ar at i on f r om a

l ocal pl umber i n suppor t of t he r equest ed hour l y r at es. See ECF

No. 12- 1 at 18- 19; see al so ECF Nos. 12- 2, 12- 3, 12- 4, 12- 5, 18-

1. The Cour t not es, however , t hat t he f ees st at ed i n t he

at t or neys’ decl ar at i ons var y si gni f i cant l y wi t hout expl anat i on.

Compare ECF No. 12- 3 ( at t orney wi t h t en years of exper i ence

char ges cl i ent s $395 per hour ) wi t h ECF No. 12- 4 ( at t or ney wi t h

9



10/21

t en year s of exper i ence char ges cl i ent s $300 per hour ) and wi t h

ECF No. 12- 4 ( at t or ney wi t h ni net een year s of exper i ence char ges

cl i ent s $350 per hour ) and wi t h ECF No. 18- 1 ( at t or ney wi t h seven

year s of exper i ence char ges cl i ent s $297 per hour ) .

The Cour t has r evi ewed t he decl ar at i ons and exhi bi t s

submi t t ed by Pl ai nt i f f , t he r ecor d i n t hi s case, and pr i or awar ds

gr ant ed t o Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel and ot her at t or neys i n t hi s

di st r i ct . Based on t he Cour t ’ s exper i ence wi t h at t or neys’ f ees

mot i ons, t he i nf or mat i on pr ovi ded by counsel , and the Cour t ’ s

knowl edge of t he pr evai l i ng r at es i n t he communi t y, t he Cour t

f i nds t hat $300 per hour i s an unr easonabl e rat e f or Mr . Hol comb

and r educes i t t o $200 per hour . Si mi l ar l y, t he Cour t f i nds t hat

$225 per hour i s an unr easonabl e r ate f or Mr . Beck and r educes i t

t o $150 per hour . See De- Occupy Honol ul u v. Ci t y and Cnt y. of

Honol ul u, Ci v. No. 12- 00668 J MS- KSC, 2015 WL 1013834, at *11 (D.

Haw. Mar . 9, 2015) ( awardi ng Mr . Hol comb $200 per hour and

awardi ng $185 per hour t o an at t orney wi t h ni ne years

exper i ence) ; Yor k v. J ordan, Ci v. No. 13- 00311 DKW- RLP, Docket

Ent r y 77 ( D. Haw. J an. 30, 2015) , adopt ed ( D. Haw. Feb. 18, 2015)

( awardi ng $200 per hour t o an at t orney wi t h 15 years exper i ence

and $140 per hour t o an at t orney wi t h 6 years exper i ence) ; Haw.

Def . Found. v. Ci t y and Cnt y. of Honol ul u, Ci v. No. 12- 00469 J MS-

RLP, 2014 WL 2804448, at *2 ( D. Haw. J un. 29, 2014) ( awardi ng Mr .

Hol comb $200 per hour and Mr . Beck $150 per hour ) . Fi nal l y, t he

Cour t f i nds t he r equest ed hour l y rat e of $85 per hour f or t he

10



11/21

unnamed paral egal i s r easonabl e.

Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat t he r equest ed hour l y r at es ar e

r easonabl e because t hey are comparabl e to or l ess t han t hose

charged by mai nl and at t orneys and t hat t he Cour t shoul d l ook t o

t he “Laf f ey Mat r i x, ” a gr i d of i nf l at i on- adj ust ed hour l y r at es

f or l awyer s i n t he Washi ngt on, D. C. ar ea, as a basel i ne st andar d

f or r easonabl e hour l y r at es. ECF No. 12- 1 at 19, 27. These

ar gument s necessar i l y f ai l because t he “r el evant communi t y” t o be

used i n det er mi ni ng whet her r equest ed f ees ar e reasonabl e “i s t he

f or um i n whi ch t he di st r i ct cour t si t s. ” Pr i son Legal News v.

Schwarzenegger , 608 F. 3d 446, 454 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) . The Ni nt h

Ci r cui t has decl i ned t o appl y the Laf f ey Mat r i x, st at i ng t hat

“j ust because t he Laf f ey mat r i x has been accept ed i n t he Di st r i ct

of Col umbi a does not mean t hat i t i s a sound basi s f or

det er mi ni ng r at es el sewher e, l et al one i n a l egal mar ket 3, 000

mi l es away. ” Pr i son Legal News, 608 F. 3d at 454. Fur t her , t hi s

cour t has r ej ect ed si mi l ar ar gument s by Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel t wi ce

i n t he l ast t wo year s because t he Laf f ey Mat r i x does not speak t o

t he appr opr i at e st andar d f or det er mi ni ng hour l y rat es i n t hi s

di st r i ct . See Haw. Def . Found. , Ci v. No. 12- 00469 J MS- RLP, 2014

WL 2804448, at *3; De- Occupy Honol ul u, Ci v. No. 12- 00668 J MS- KSC,

2015 WL 1013834, at *10. Pl ai nt i f f ’ s rel i ance on f ees awar ded or

char ged t o cl i ent s out si de of t hi s di st r i ct i s t her ef or e

unavai l i ng.

Pl ai nt i f f al so ar gues t hat t he novel t y and di f f i cul t y

11



12/21

of t he case suppor t t he r equest ed hour l y r at es. See ECF No. 12- 1

at 33. However , t he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hat , wi t h t he except i on of

t he i ssue of at t or neys’ f ees, t hi s case has not been cont ent i ous

and t he par t i es set t l ed bef or e Pl ai nt i f f f i l ed any pl eadi ngs

ot her t han t he Compl ai nt . See ECF No. 11, Not i ce of Set t l ement .

Fur t her , t hi s act i on i s not par t i cul ar l y novel as Pl ai nt i f f i s

mer el y seeki ng t o enf or ce t hi s cour t ’ s r ecent r ul i ng t hat

Def endant cannot pr ecl ude l awf ul per manent r esi dent s f r om

appl yi ng f or a per mi t t o acqui r e f i r ear ms. See Fot oudi s v. Ci t y

and Cnt y. of Honol ul u, 54 F. Supp. 3d 1136 ( D. Haw. 2014) . The

Cour t t her ef or e f i nds Pl ai nt i f f ’ s ar gument s based on t he novel t y

and di f f i cul t y of t hi s case t o be unper suasi ve.

B. Reasonable Hours Spent

The f ee appl i cant bear s t he bur den of document i ng t he

appr opr i ate hour s expended i n the l i t i gat i on and must submi t

evi dence i n suppor t of t hose hour s wor ked. Hensl ey, 461 U. S. at

437; Gat es, 987 F. 2d at 1397. The pr evai l i ng par t y bear s t he

bur den of pr ovi ng t hat t he f ees r equest ed ar e associ at ed wi t h t he

r el i ef r equest ed and ar e r easonabl y necessar y t o achi eve t he

r esul t s obt ai ned. See Ti r ona v. St at e Far m Mut . Aut o. I ns. Co. ,

821 F. Supp. 632, 636 ( D. Haw. 1993) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The

opposi ng par t y t hen has t he bur den of r ebut t al t hat r equi r es

submi ssi on of evi dence chal l engi ng the accur acy and

r easonabl eness of t he hour s char ged. Gat es, 987 F. 2d at 1397- 98.

The cour t i s r equi r ed t o expl ai n how i t made i t s f ee

12



13/21

det er mi nat i on i n a compr ehensi bl e, but not el abor at e f ashi on.

Moreno v. Ci t y of Sacrament o, 534 F. 3d 1106, 1111 ( 9t h Ci r .

2008) .

1. Hours Spent on the Complaint

Def endant ar gues t hat t he hour s r equest ed f or dr af t i ng

t he Compl ai nt ar e not r easonabl e because l i t i gat i on was not

necessary and an al t er nat i ve r esol ut i on pr ocess exi st ed. ECF No.

21 at 13. Def endant ar gues t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel was awar e

t hat Def endant pr ovi ded a cl ai ms pr ocess f or “cases such as t hi s”

and t hat t he f i l i ng of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Compl ai nt was t her ef or e

unnecessary and shoul d not be compensat ed. I d. Thi s argument i s

wi t hout mer i t . The f act t hat Pl ai nt i f f obt ai ned a f avor abl e

set t l ement t hr ough t hi s act i on t hat pr ovi ded hi m wi t h al l of t he

r el i ef he request ed i n hi s Compl ai nt under cut s any ar gument t hat

t hi s l i t i gat i on was unnecessary. See ECF No. 12- 8. Def endant

does not pr ovi de any aut hor i t y that suppor t s t he pr oposi t i on t hat

Pl ai nt i f f was under an obl i gat i on t o f i r st pur sue hi s cl ai ms

t hr ough an i nf or mal di sput e r esol ut i on pr ocess. See ECF No. 21.

The Cour t t her ef or e f i nds t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s r equest ed hours f or

dr af t i ng t he Compl ai nt ar e r easonabl e.

2. Hours Spent on Documents Not Filed

Def endant cont ends t hat t he Cour t shoul d r educe t he

f ees r equest ed f or hour s spent dr af t i ng t he mot i on f or

pr el i mi nary i nj unct i on and t he mot i on f or j udgment on t he

pl eadi ngs because t hose mot i ons were not f i l ed and were t heref ore

13



14/21

not r easonabl y necessary. ECF No. 21 at 14. The Cour t agr ees.

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel spent a t ot al of 48 hour s dr af t i ng t hese t wo

mot i ons. See ECF Nos. 12- 26, 12- 27. The maj or i t y of t hi s wor k

t ook pl ace af t er Def endant had al r eady of f er ed t o compl y wi t h al l

of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s demands wi t h t he except i on of at t or neys’ f ees.

See ECF Nos. 12- 6 ¶¶ 18- 22, 12- 26, 12- 27.

Thr oughout t he t hree mont hs bet ween when t hi s case was

f i l ed and when i t was di smi ssed, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel consi st ent l y

set unr easonabl y shor t deadl i nes f or Def endant and began dr af t i ng

t he two mot i ons bef ore even al l owi ng Def endant t he f ul l amount of

t i me t o r espond. For exampl e, i n hi s November 9 Let t er ,

Pl ai nt i f f pr ovi ded Def endant onl y f our days t o r espond t o

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s demand, one of whi ch f el l on Vet er an’ s Day, a

nat i onal hol i day. See ECF No. 12- 10 at 2. Nonet hel ess, t wo days

af t er sendi ng t he November 9 Let t er , Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel began

dr af t i ng a mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on. ECF No. 12- 27 at

1. Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel spent 19. 7 hour s dr af t i ng t he mot i on f or

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on bef or e maki ng cont act wi t h Def endant ’ s

counsel on November 18, 2015. See i d. at 1; ECF No. 12- 6 ¶ 13.

Af t er maki ng cont act wi t h Def endant ’ s counsel and di scussi ng t he

November 9 Let t er on November 18, 2015, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel spent

anot her 14 hour s r esear chi ng and dr af t i ng t he mot i on f or

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on bef or e cont act i ng Def endant agai n l ess

t han one week l at er . ECF Nos. 12- 26 at 5, 12- 27 at 1.

Addi t i onal l y, i n t he December 18 Emai l , whi ch was sent on a

14



15/21

Fri day, Pl ai nt i f f pr ovi ded Def endant onl y f i ve days t o respond.

ECF No. 12- 12. Pl ai nt i f f i ndi cat ed t hat i f Def endant di d not

r espond by December 23, 2015, Pl ai nt i f f woul d f i l e a mot i on on

December 28. I d. Bef ore Def endant r esponded, and despi t e t he

i nt er veni ng Chr i st mas hol i day, Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel spent an

addi t i onal 7. 6 hour s on t he mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on and

3. 3 hour s on t he mot i on f or j udgment on t he pl eadi ngs. See ECF

Nos. 12- 26 at 5, 12- 27 at 1. These hour s were unnecessary

because Def endant had al r eady agr eed t o set t l e wi t h Pl ai nt i f f and

t he par t i es were exchangi ng proposed set t l ement agreement s. See

ECF Nos. 12- 6 ¶¶ 18- 24, 21- 1 ¶¶ 24- 27. The Cour t t her ef or e f i nds

t hat t he 48 hour s ( 7. 7 hour s spent by Mr . Hol comb; 40. 3 hour s

spent by Mr . Beck) spent r esear chi ng and dr af t i ng Pl ai nt i f f ’ s

mot i on f or pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on and mot i on f or j udgment on t he

pl eadi ngs were not r easonabl y necessary and shoul d be deni ed.

Pl ai nt i f f al so r equest s 2. 5 hour s f or t i me spent

“Dr af t [ i ng] 26J conf er ence st at ement . ” See ECF No. 12- 27 at 1.

Gi ven t hat t hi s ent r y occur s on t he same dat e that Pl ai nt i f f

i ndi cat es t he par t i es met f or a Rul e 26( f ) conf er ence, i t appear s

t hat t he t i me was spent dr af t i ng a st at ement t o submi t t o t he

Cour t pur suant t o Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 26( f ) ( 2) . See

Fed. R. Ci v. P. 26( f ) ( 2) ( r equi r i ng t he at t or neys of r ecor d t o

“submi t [ ] t o t he cour t wi t hi n 14 days af t er t he conf er ence a

wr i t t en r epor t out l i ni ng t he [ di scover y] pl an”) . A Rul e 26( f )

conf er ence st at ement was not f i l ed i n t hi s act i on. Ther ef or e,

15



16/21

t he Cour t deduct s t he 2. 5 hour s spent by Mr . Beck on t he Rul e

26( f ) st at ement .

3. Hours Spent on Plaintiff’s Attorneys’ Fees Motion

Ti me spent on wor k deemed “excessi ve, r edundant , or

otherwi se unnecessary” shal l not be compensat ed. See Gates, 987

F. 2d at 1399 ( quot i ng Hensl ey, 461 U. S. at 433- 34) . Def endant

ar gues t hat t he hour s r equest ed by Pl ai nt i f f f or t i me spent on

t he i nst ant Mot i on ar e “f aci al l y excessi ve” and shoul d t her ef or e

be deni ed. ECF No. 21. Af t er r evi ew of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on and

t he r ecor d i n t hi s case, t he Cour t agr ees. Al t hough Pl ai nt i f f ’ s

Mot i on i s t hi r t y pages l ong and cont ai ns numer ous exhi bi t s,

near l y al l t he exhi bi t s and t en pages of ar gument s made i n

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on ar e t aken di r ect l y f r om a pr evi ous mot i on f or

at t or neys’ f ees f i l ed by Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel i n an unr el at ed

case. See Haw. Def . Found. , Ci v. No. 12- 00469 J MS- RLP, Docket

Ent r y 56. The Cour t t her ef or e f i nds t he amount of t i me spent on

Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on i s excessi ve and deduct s 30 hour s f r om t he 49

hour s Pl ai nt i f f r equest ed f or wor k on t he i nst ant Mot i on ( 11. 7

hour s deduct ed f r omMr . Hol comb; 18. 3 hour s deduct ed f r omMr .

Beck) . Because t he Cour t s i mi l ar l y f i nds t hat t he 23. 9 hour s

r equest ed f or t i me spent on Pl ai nt i f f ’ s f i f t een- page Repl y i s

unr easonabl y excessi ve, t he Cour t deduct s 13 hour s f r om t he

r equest ed hour s f or work on t he Repl y ( 4. 94 hour s deduct ed f r om

Mr . Hol comb; 8. 06 hour s deduct ed f r omMr . Beck) .

16



17/21

4. Duplicative Billing

Gener al l y, t wo pr of essi onal s cannot bi l l f or at t endi ng

t he same meet i ng. See Robi nson v. Pl our de, 717 F. Supp. 2d 1092,

1099 ( D. Haw. 2010) ( ci t i ng Br andon E. v. Dep’ t of Educ. , Ci v.

No. 07–00536 ACK–LEK, 2008 WL 4602533, at *3 (D. Haw. Oct . 16,

2008) ) . Accor di ngl y, “when a par t y’ s counsel meet wi t h one

ot her , t he Cour t deduct s t he dupl i cat i ve t i me bi l l ed. ” I d. When

deduct i ng dupl i cat i vel y bi l l ed t i me, t he Cour t wi l l deduct t he

t i me f or t he l ower - bi l l i ng at t or ney. See Robi nson, 717 F. Supp.

2d at 1099 ( ci t i ng I n r e Mul l i ns, 84 F. 3d 459, 467 ( D. C. Ci r .

1996) ( deduct i ng f ees i ncur r ed by the t wo l owest - bi l l i ng

at t or neys wher e t hr ee at t or neys bi l l ed t i me spent at t endi ng a

meet i ng t oget her ) ) .

Her e, t her e wer e thr ee i nst ances of dupl i cat i ve

bi l l i ng. On 10/ 29/ 2015, bot h of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s at t or neys bi l l ed f or

an i ni t i al phone consul t at i on wi t h t he cl i ent . See ECF Nos. 12-

26 at 1, 12- 27 at 1. Because Mr . Beck i s t he l ower bi l l i ng

at t or ney and i ndi cat ed t hat he spent 2. 2 hour s on t he cal l , t he

Cour t deduct s 2. 2 hour s. ECF No. 12- 27 at 1. On 11/ 6/ 2015, both

of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s at t or neys bi l l ed f or di scussi ng t he case wi t h each

ot her . See ECF Nos. 12- 26 at 1, 12- 27 at 1. The Cour t t her ef or e

deduct s 2. 1 hour s f r om Mr . Beck’ s t i me. I d. at 1. Last , on

12/ 28/ 2015, bot h of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s at t or neys bi l l ed f or di scussi ng

t he case wi t h each ot her . The Cour t t her ef or e deduct s t he 1. 5

hour s bi l l ed by Mr . Beck. I d. at 1. I n t ot al , t he Cour t deduct s

17



18/21

5. 8 hour s5 bi l l ed by Mr . Beck f or dupl i cat i ve bi l l i ng.

5. Clerical Tasks

Cl er i cal cost s are par t of an at t or ney’ s over head and

ar e r ef l ect ed i n t he char ged hour l y r at e. J er emi ah B. v. Dep’ t

of Educ. , Ci vi l No. 09–00262 DAE–LEK, 2010 WL 346454, at *5 ( D.

Haw. J an. 29, 2010) ( ci t i ng Shef f er v. Exper i an I nf o. Sol ut i ons,

I nc. , 290 F. Supp. 2d 538, 549 ( E. D. Pa. 2003) ) . “Tasks such as

r evi ewi ng Cour t - gener at ed not i ces, not i f yi ng cl i ent s of cour t

hear i ngs, f i l i ng document s wi t h the Cour t , communi cat i on wi t h

cour t st af f , schedul i ng, and cor r espondi ng r egar di ng deadl i nes,

ar e cl er i cal and not compensabl e. ” Robi nson, 717 F. Supp. 2d at

1099 ( ci t i ng J eremi ah B. , Ci vi l No. 09–00262 DAE–LEK, 2010 WL

346454, at *5) . The Cour t has car ef ul l y r evi ewed counsel ’ s t i me

ent r i es and f i nds t hat t he f ol l owi ng deduct i ons ar e appr opr i at e

f or cl er i cal t asks: 0. 5 hour s of par al egal t i me t o “I ni t i at e

case/ Fi l e Compl ai nt ” on 11/ 6/ 2015, 1. 2 hour s of par al egal t i me t o

“Compi l e/ mar k/ scan exhs. / Fi l e” on 2/ 4/ 2016, and 1 hour of

par al egal t i me t o “Compi l e/ Copy Cour t esy Copi es/ Del i ver ” on

2/ 4/ 2016. The Cour t t her ef or e deduct s 2. 7 hour s6 of t i me bi l l ed

by t he unnamed par al egal on cl er i cal t asks.

6. Retainer Agreement

Fi nal l y, t he Cour t deduct s t he 0. 5 hour s of Mr .

5 ( 2. 2 hour s on 10/ 29/ 2015) + ( 2. 1 hour s on 11/ 6/ 2015) +( 1. 5 hour s on 12/ 28/ 2015) = 5. 8 hour s.

6 ( 0. 5 hour s on 11/ 6/ 2015) + ( 1. 2 hour s on 2/ 4/ 2016) + ( 1. 0hour on 2/ 4/ 2016) = 2. 7 hour s.

18



19/21

Hol comb’ s t i me t hat wer e bi l l ed f or wor k on Pl ai nt i f f ’ s j oi nt

r epr esent at i on r et ai ner agr eement . See Bl ack v. Ci t y and Cnt y.

of Honol ul u, Ci vi l No. 07–00299 DAE–LEK, 2010 WL 653026, at *11

( D. Haw. Feb. 22, 2010) ( f i ndi ng t hat wor k on cl i ent agr eement s

i s not compensabl e, even t hough such work i s necessary t o t he

pr of essi onal r el at i onshi p, because i t does not cont r i but e t o t he

l i t i gat i on of t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s cl ai ms) .

The Cour t FI NDS t hat t he f ol l owi ng r at es and hours ar e

r easonabl e f or wor k per f or med by Pl ai nt i f f ’ s counsel :

ATTORNEY HOURS RATE TOTAL

Ri char d L. Hol comb, Esq. 56. 667 $200 $11, 332. 00

Al an Beck, Esq. 11. 448 $150 $1, 716. 00

Par al egal 2. 89 $85 $238. 00

Subtotal $13, 286. 00

General Exci se Tax (4. 712%) $626. 04

TOTAL $13,912.04

I n t otal , t he Cour t RECOMMENDS t hat t he cour t award

f ees i n t he amount of $13, 912. 04.

As di scussed above, i n cer t ai n except i onal

7 ( 81. 5 hour s r equest ed) - ( 7. 7 hour s on unf i l ed mot i ons) -( 11. 7 hour s on i nst ant Mot i on) - ( 4. 94 hour s on Repl y) - ( 0. 5hour s on r etai ner agr eement ) = 56. 66 hour s.

8 ( 86. 4 hour s r equest ed) - ( 40. 3 hour s on unf i l ed mot i ons) -( 2. 5 hour s spent on conf er ence st at ement ) - ( 18. 3 hour s oni nst ant Mot i on) - ( 8. 06 hour s on Repl y) - ( 5. 8 hour s f ordupl i cat i ve bi l l i ng) = 11. 44 hour s.

9 ( 5. 5 hour s r equest ed) - ( 2. 7 hour s on cl er i cal t asks) =2. 8 hour s.

19



20/21

ci r cumst ances a cour t may deci de to adj ust t he l odest ar f i gur e

based on an eval uat i on of sever al f act or s. See Ker r , 526 F. 2d at

70. Pl ai nt i f f ar gues that t he Ker r f act or s suppor t an upwar d

adj ust ment i n f ees. See ECF No. 12- 1 at 33- 34. Speci f i cal l y,

Pl ai nt i f f ar gues t hat t he novel t y and di f f i cul t y of t he case,

whet her Pl ai nt i f f ’ s f ee i s f i xed or cont i ngent , t he exper i ence of

counsel , and t he undesi r abi l i t y of t he case suppor t an i ncr ease

i n t he l odest ar f i gur e. See i d. Fi r st , t he f actor s r egar di ng

t he novel t y and di f f i cul t y of t he case and t he exper i ence of

counsel are subsumed i nt o t he l odest ar anal ysi s and have been

t aken i nt o consi der at i on i n t he Cour t ’ s cal cul at i on of t he

l odest ar f i gur e. See Mor al es, 96 F. 3d at 364 n. 9. Second,

whet her a f ee i s f i xed or cont i ngent i s not consi der ed i n t he

l odest ar cal cul at i on and cannot suppor t an upwar d adj ust ment i n

t he l odest ar f i gur e. See Robi nson, 717 F. Supp. 2d at 1097

( ci t i ng Davi s, 967 F. 2d at 1549) . Last , t he Cour t f i nds t hat

Pl ai nt i f f has not shown t hat t hi s case i s suf f i ci ent l y

undesi r abl e t o suppor t an upwar d adj ust ment i n the l odest ar

f i gur e. Ther ef or e, based on t he Cour t ’ s r evi ew of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s

Mot i on and t he r ecor d i n t hi s case, t he Cour t f i nds t hat t hi s

case does not pr esent a rar e or except i onal ci r cumst ance that

j ust i f i es an adj ust ment of t he l odest ar f i gur e.

III. Costs

Under Sect i on 1988, a pl ai nt i f f may r ecover i t s

r easonabl e expenses, i ncl udi ng cost s not ot her wi se t axabl e under

20



21/21

28 U. S. C. § 1920. See Har r i s v. Mar hoef er , 24 F. 3d 16, 20 ( 9t h

Ci r . 1994) . Pl ai nt i f f seeks t o r ecover $400. 00 f or f ees of t he

cl er k and $168. 40 f or pr i nt i ng f ees, f or a t ot al of $568. 40. ECF

No. 12- 25 at 1. However , Pl ai nt i f f f ai l s t o pr ovi de an

i t emi zat i on of hi s expenses or document at i on suppor t i ng t he

r equest ed cost s. Ther ef or e, based on i t s r evi ew of Pl ai nt i f f ’ s

r equest , t he Cour t cannot f i nd t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s pr i nt i ng cost s

wer e r easonabl y i ncur r ed i n t hi s l i t i gat i on. The Cour t

RECOMMENDS t hat t he di st r i ct cour t deny Pl ai nt i f f ’ s r equest f or

pr i nt i ng cost s and awar d $400. 00 i n cost s f or f ees of t he cl er k.

CONCLUSI ON

The Cour t FI NDS and RECOMMENDS t hat Pl ai nt i f f ’ s Mot i on

f or At t orneys’ Fees and Rel at ed Non- Taxabl e Expenses be GRANTED

I N PART and DENI ED I N PART. The Cour t RECOMMENDS t hat t he

di st r i ct j udge AWARD Pl ai nt i f f $13, 912. 04 i n at t or ney’ s f ees and

$400. 00 i n cost s.

I T I S SO FOUND AND RECOMMENDED.

DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAI I , MARCH 24, 2016.

_____________________________ Ri char d L. Pugl i siUni t ed St at es Magi st r at e J udge

ROBERTS V. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, ET AL.; CIVIL NO. 15-00467

ACK-RLP; FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

21
