Jerry and Patricia A. Dixon, et al. - Page 45

                                        - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011