UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 2:10-cv-09034-JHN-JCx Date: December 8, 2011Title: Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver v. The Hurt Locker, LLC, et al.
______________________________________________________________________________CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL 3
evaluation of the
factors that are not already subsumed in the initial lodestarcalculation.”
factors are:(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legalservice properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by theattorney due to the acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee,(6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitationsimposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amountinvolved and the results obtained, (9) the experience, reputation,and ability of the attorneys, (10) the “undesirability” of the case,(11) the nature and length of the professional relationship withthe client, and (12) awards in similar cases.
Morales v. City of San Rafael
, 96 F.3d 359, 363 n. 8 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing
Kerr v.Screen Extras Guild
, 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975),
, 425 U.S. 951(1976). The court need only address factors relevant to the case before it.
Quesada v. Thomason
, 850 F.2d 537, 539 (9th Cir. 1988 ). There is a strongpresumption that the lodestar figure is reasonable.
Pennsylvania v. Del. ValleyCitizens’ Council for Clean Air
, 483 U.S. 711, 728 (1987). Where a party“obtain[s] excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee.Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation . . .”
Hensley v. Eckerhart
, 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983).“The Court must explain how it reached the ultimate amount of fees awarded,although that explanation can vary somewhat in its level of detail depending on themagnitude of the variation from the amount requested and the amount awarded.”
Lauderdale v. City of Long Beach
, No. CV 08-979 ABC JWJx, at 9 (citing
Morenov. City of Sacramento
, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that “thedistrict court can impose a small reduction, no greater than 10 percent—a‘haircut’—based on its exercise of discretion and without a more specificexplanation”)).
Case 2:10-cv-09034-JHN -JC Document 146 Filed 12/08/11 Page 3 of 13 Page ID#:2151