- 58 -
link a certain segment of legal services to the denial of
particular relief, the limited success factor typically is
addressed at a separate stage through a percentage downward
adjustment of the lodestar.” Sisk, 56 La. L. Rev. at 119; see
also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. at 436-437 (in applying the
limited success factor, a court “may attempt to identify specific
hours that should be eliminated, or it may simply reduce the
award to account for the limited success”). Here, the lodestar
for the Hongsermeiers’ fees on fees is $38,861.25 ($38,583.75 for
2003 through 2005, and $277.50 for 2006). In determining the
degree of success they achieved with regard to their fee request,
we compare the number of “merits hours” they claimed (i.e., hours
relating to the appeal--930.32) with the number of merits hours
we have allowed (868.36).49 See Thompson v. Gomez, 45 F.3d 1365
(9th Cir. 1995) (upholding District Court’s award of 87.2 percent
of requested fees on fees to reflect the parties’ 87.2-percent
settlement with regard to requested “merits fees”); Harris v.
McCarthy, 790 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1986) (upholding District
Court’s award of 11.5 percent of requested fees on fees to
reflect its award of 11.5 percent of requested merits fees). The
49 See supra Parts III.D.1.a. and III.D.1.b. (372.92 + 28.75
+ 15.99 + 431.95 + 13.6 + 5.15 = 868.36). We compare merits
hours claimed to merits hours allowed rather than merits fees
claimed to merits fees awarded because much of the difference
between the merits fees claimed and the merits fees awarded in
this case is attributable to sec. 7430’s rate cap, the effect of
which is already reflected in the fees on fees lodestar amount of
$38,861.25.
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011