Gary Scherer v. Woodley-Vanomen Properties ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 8 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY SCHERER, No. 20-55201
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:18-cv-08239-GW-AFM
v.
WOODLEY-VANOMEN PROPERTIES; MEMORANDUM*
TMT WIRELESS, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 3, 2021**
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, TALLMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Gary Scherer appeals from the district court’s order granting his motion for
attorney’s fees in his action under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
California Unruh Civil Rights Act. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
not recount them here. We affirm.
“The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable
[attorney’s] fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation
multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate,” also “known as the lodestar.” Vogel v.
Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
“In determining the appropriate lodestar amount, the district court may exclude
from the fee request any hours that are ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise
unnecessary.’” Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 946 (9th Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted).
Here, the district court utilized the lodestar method, reviewed over 100
billing entries, and excluded or reduced entries it found unreasonable such as
“duplicative entries, entries where the time billed was unreasonably long and
entries where attorneys [were] billing for administrative work far below their
capabilities.” The district court also reduced hours for overstaffing and “blatant
overbilling.” These entries were reasonably reduced or excluded from the lodestar
amount because they were “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Id.This “is precisely the kind of assessment that is entitled to considerable deference
because of the district court’s superior understanding of the litigation.” Id. at 949(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“[W]hen the district court makes its award, it must explain how it came up
2
with the amount. The explanation need not be elaborate, but it must be
comprehensible[.]” Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 2014)
(citation omitted). “While detailed calculations are not mandated, ‘something
more than a bald, unsupported amount is necessary’ to affirm an award of
attorneys’ fees.” Id. (citation omitted). Here, the district court gave a
“comprehensible” explanation for the rate set and ultimate award, providing
substantially more than a “bald, unsupported amount.” See id. (citation omitted).
Finally, Scherer’s argument that the district court was biased is without
merit. And because we affirm, reassignment to a new district court judge is moot.
AFFIRMED.
3