- 45 -
supra at 537.39 In that regard, we deem it noteworthy that Pierce
itself involved a class action in which plaintiffs’ counsel
secured a $60 million settlement against the Department of
Housing and Urban Development that was paid to more than 150,000
low-income tenants of federally subsidized housing projects. See
Underwood v. Pierce, 547 F. Supp. 256, 258 (C.D. Cal. 1982).
5. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that we are
constrained to apply the statutory rate caps in determining the
respective amounts of petitioners’ fee awards under section 7430.
C. Compensable Hours
1. Respondent’s Objections
a. Duplicative Fees Due to Change of Counsel
Respondent argues that any fee award should exclude
“duplicative attorneys’ fees associated with two sets of
appellate counsel having to read the same record and learn the
same case.” While the inefficiencies associated with a change in
counsel may, in some instances, warrant a reduced fee award, see,
e.g., Spell v. McDaniel, 852 F.2d 762, 768 (4th Cir. 1988), we
conclude that such a reduction would be inappropriate here. As
noted above, more than 300 nontest case petitioners have financed
the test case litigation through contributions to the Defense
39 The court also cited Jean v. Nelson, 863 F.2d at 775, a
class action involving Haitian refugee claims, in which it had
rejected “vindication of public rights” as a special factor under
the EAJA.
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011