Hoyt W. and Barbara D. Young, et al. - Page 54

                                        - 54 -                                        
          adjustments discussed above that apply to 2002-2003 paralegal               
          time entries.  We then multiply the remaining 28.7 hours by the             
          hourly paralegal rate charged by Jones ($125) to obtain the                 
          paralegal lodestar for this period:  $3,587.50.                             
                    c.   Total                                                        
               The lodestar with respect to the Jones fee request is                  
          $20,147.90 ($6,315.40 + $5,850 + $4,395 + $3,587.50).                       
               F.   Adjustment to Izen’s Fees-on-Fees Lodestar To Reflect             
                    Limited Success                                                   
               In Dixon VII, we reduced our awards of fees-on-fees to                 
          account for the limited success achieved by the PH appellants and           
          the Hongsermeiers in pursuing their fee requests.  See, e.g.,               
          Thompson v. Gomez, 45 F.3d 1365, 1367 (9th Cir. 1995) (“the legal           
          principles for recovering attorney’s fees laid out in Hensley               
          [citation omitted] apply to requests for fees-on-fees”); see also           
          Commissioner, INS v. Jean, 496 U.S. at 163 n.10 (dicta).  The PH            
          appellants had unsuccessfully pursued certain discrete issues               
          relating to their fee request, “thus allowing the limited success           
          factor to be measured by hours devoted to that effort.”  Sisk, 56           
          La. L. Rev. at 119; see supra Part III.B.2.a.  Having lacked that           
          alternative in the case of the Hongsermeiers, we instead compared           
          the number of merits hours allowed to merits hours claimed and              
          applied the resulting “success ratio” to their fees-on-fees                 
          lodestar.  See Thompson v. Gomez, supra (applying 87.2-percent              
          success ratio); Harris v. McCarthy, 790 F.2d 753, 758-759 (9th              





Page:  Previous  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011