Hounshel v. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC

Filing 126

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff's Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Dkt. 113 ) is Granted. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff $201,829.00 in attorney fees. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
DEREK HOUNSHEL,
Case No.: 4:11-cv-00635-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
BATTELLE ENERGY ALLIANCE,
LLC,
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Plaintiff’s Motion For Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Dkt.
113). For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Derek Hounshel filed this action against Battelle Energy Alliance LLC,
alleging that Battelle engaged in unlawful adverse employment actions against him based
on a perceived disability. Hounshel alleged that his perceived disability was either the
sole reason or a motivating factor for Battelle’s decision to take these adverse actions
against him.
At trial, the jury found in favor of Hounshel. The jury found that Battelle did take
adverse actions against Hounshel and they were motivated, in part, by Hounshel’s
perceived disability. The jury awarded Hounshel compensatory and punitive damages in

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

the amount of $99,944.1. The Court did grant Battelle’s motion for a directed verdict on
Houshel’s gender discrimination claim. Judgment was entered in favor of Hounshel on
December 4, 2012. (Dkt. 112). Hounshel now seeks his attorneys’ fees and costs in this
matter.
ANALYSIS
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) provides for an award of
reasonable attorneys’ fees. Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008); 42
U.S.C. § 12205. Before awarding fees in an ADA case, the Court must determine, first,
whether the plaintiff was prevailing party, and second, what constitutes a reasonable
amount. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1118-19 (9th Cir. 2000).
There is no question that Hounshel is the prevailing party, so the Court must only
determine a reasonable fee award. As a threshold matter, however, the Court must
address whether Hounshel’s fee motion should be considered at all. Battelle argues that
Hounshel’s motion should be denied because it was filed one day late.
1.

Timeliness of Motion
Local Civil Rule 54.2 requires that any request for attorney’s fees by a prevailing

party must be submitted within fourteen days of the entry of judgment giving rise to the
request for fees. Here, Judgment was entered on December 3, 2013, Dkt. 112, and
therefore Hounshel’s fee motion should have been submitted no later than December 17,
2013. But Hounshel did not file his motion until December 18, 2013. Dkt. 113. So,
technically, Hounshel’s motion was filed a day late. Graves v. OfficeMax Inc., Case No.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

1:06-CV-00083-BLW, 2007 WL 576472 , n.4 (D. Idaho Feb. 21, 2007). Hounshel,
however was confused because the judgment was entered on December 3, 2013, but the
docket entry was entered on December 4, 2013. Given these circumstances, the Court
will not exercise its discretion to deny the motion as untimely. Id.
2.

Reasonableness of Fee Award
Having decided this threshold issue, the Court will examine the reasonableness of

the fee request. In determining the fee award, a district court must consider whether the
rate charged and whether the hours expended by the attorneys were reasonable. Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429 (1983). The Ninth Circuit has adopted twelve factors
known as the Kerr factors to aid a district court in this decision. Kerr v. Screen Extras
Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.1975). They include: “(1) the time and labor
required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (3) the skill requisite to
perform the legal service properly, (4) the preclusion of other employment by the
attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed
or contingent, (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the
amount involved 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 with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.” Id.
Once the district court has determined that both the hourly rate and hours
expended are reasonable, it should take these two numbers and multiply them to establish
an initial estimate of the value of the attorney's services. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

Hounshel was represented by DeAnne Casperson and Amanda E. Ulrich. The
chart below shows counsels’ hourly rates, number of hours billed, and total fees charged
by each attorney, as well as the fees charged for the entire case based on the attorneys’
fees paid and those that are unpaid. The total attorneys’ fees, including both paid and
unpaid hours are $201,829.00.
Attorney

Hours Billed

DeAnne Casperson
Amanda Ulrich
Total

41.7
29.1

Attorney

Hours Billed

DeAnne Casperson
Amanda Ulrich
Total

538.4
455.6

Effective Hourly
Rate
$175.13
$137.80

Effective Hourly
Rate
$210.00
$170.00

Total
$7,303.06
$4,009.94
$11,313.00

Total
$113,064.00
$77,452.00
$190,516.00

Hounshel has submitted a lengthy itemized statement to the Court detailing the
services Hounshel’s counsel provided. Casperson Aff., ¶ 2, Ex. A. The Court has
reviewed these documents and finds that the hourly rates charged by Hounshel’s
attorneys are reasonable, as well as the hours expended.
A.

Partial Success

Before addressing the reasonableness of the lodestar amount, the Court must
determine whether it will reduce the fee award because Hounshel failed to prevail on his
Title VII gender discrimination claim. When a plaintiff succeeds only on some claims,
the Court must determine whether the successful and unsuccessful claims were related.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 812-13 (9th Cir. 2005). “At bottom, the focus is on whether
the unsuccessful and successful claims arose out of the same course of conduct. If they
did not, the hours expended on the unsuccessful claims should not be included in the fee
award.” Id. at 813 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The Court finds that the gender discrimination claim was too intertwined with the
ADA claims to separate it out for attorney fee purposes. The issue of gender bias was tied
directly to the allegations of mental instability and violence. Hounshel alleged that
Battelle only forced male employees to undergo psychological assessments when accused
of workplace violence. The facts that undergirded the ADA claim also supported the
gender discrimination claim. The Court therefore will not reduce the fee award to reflect
Hounshel’s partial success.
B.

Hourly rate

As stated above, a district court must make a determination as to whether the
hourly rate charged by an attorney is reasonable. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. In making this
determination, the district court should take into consideration the Kerr factors. Kerr, 526
F.2d at 70. Of these factors, the Ninth Circuit has stated that the prevailing rate in the
community for similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and
reputation, should guide the district court in determining whether the hourly rate charged
was reasonable. Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir.2011). Additionally, it
is the responsibility of an attorney seeking an award to submit evidence showing that the
hourly rates are reasonable. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. However, it is not an abuse of

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

discretion for a district court to rely in part on it's own knowledge and experience in
determining a reasonable hourly rate. Ingram, 647 F.3d at 928.
The attorneys who worked on this case and their current hourly rates are as
follows: DeAnne Casperson, $210.00 per hour, and Amanda E. Ulrich, $170.00 per hour.
The Court finds that the hourly rates charged by both Ms. Casperson and Ms. Ulrich are
reasonable. The Court further concludes that Houshel’s attorneys are entitled to the
prevailing local rate even if they gave Hounshel a courtesy discount for the fees he paid.
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 2008).The Court bases its
finding on the affidavits of Ms. Casperson and James D. Holman, an experienced
attorney who practices in southeastern Idaho, as well as the Court’s knowledge of the
customary fees in the area for attorneys with Ms. Casperson and Ms. Ulrich’s experience,
expertise, and reputation.
C.

Hours Expended

Once a district court has determined that the hourly rate charged by an attorney is
reasonable, the district court must determine whether the number of hours expended are
reasonable. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. Again, the district court should consider the Kerr
factors to aid its determination. Kerr, 526 F.2d at 70. Additionally, the district court
should consider the responsibility of the party seeking an award of fees to submit
evidence supporting the hours expended on the case. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433.
Hounshel’s attorneys billed a total of 1064.8 hours pursuing this case on behalf of
Hounshel. Although Battelle quibbles with some of the hours expended, the Court finds

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

that the number of hours Hounshel’s counsel billed is reasonable, and as discussed below,
the Court will not reduce the hours as requested by Battelle.
First, Battelle argues that the hours expended between January 14, 2011, and
March 11, 2011, are not reasonable because they were expended nearly a year before the
complaint was filed. But, according to Hounshel’s counsel, the hours expended before the
charge of discrimination and the Complaint were filed were necessary to the prosecution
of the case. Counsel’s representation of Hounshel began in January 2011 after Battelle
required that Hounshel be psychologically evaluated. Hounshel sought legal assistance
because of the same actions by Battelle that led to the filing of the EEOC charge and the
Complaint. Therefore, the hours expended during this time were sufficiently related to the
litigation so as to warrant their inclusion in the fee award.
Second, the Court finds that the hours spent on the motion for partial summary
judgment, motion in limine and jury instructions were reasonable. It is not entirely
uncommon for plaintiffs to file motions for partial summary judgment on discrete legal
issues as Hounshel did here. Although his motion was denied, the Court cannot say it was
completely unreasonable for him to file the motion. Likewise, the Court cannot say that
the hours Hounshel’s expended on motions in limine and jury instructions were so
unreasonable that they should be excluded from Hounshel’s fee award.
Nor does the Court believe that the fees requested are disproportionate to the result
obtained. Nearly $100,000 is not an insignificant amount for an Idaho jury. More
importantly, Hounshel succeeded on an important civil rights issue. Morales v. City of

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7

San Rap
phael, 96 F.3d 359, 365 (9th Cir. 1996). Mor
5
1
reover, part of the reaso that
on
Hounshe did not re
el
eceive a larg damage award wa because h was able to find
ger
es
as
he
e
another well-paying job. Houn
g
nshel should not be pen
d
nalized because he suc
ccessfully
mitigated his damag
ges.
Finally, the Court will reduce not the fee awa because of counsel’s “block
F
C
r
t
ard
billing.” Both Ms. Casperson and Ms. Ul
”
lrich’s entri are suffi
ies
ficiently detailed, so tha
at
the Cour could det
rt
termine the reasonableness of the charges.
In sum, cons
n
sidering all the factors which bear on Hounsh
r
hel’s degree of success
e
s,
and look
king at the case as a wh
c
hole, the Co finds th no adjus
ourt
hat
stments to t attorney
the
ys’
fee awar are warra
rd
anted. Thus the Court finds that H
s,
Hounshel sh be awa
hall
arded attorney's
fees in th amount of $201,829
he
o
9.00.
ORDER
O
IT IS ORDE
T
ERED that Plaintiff’s Motion Fo Attorneys Fees and Costs (Dkt
t
or
s’
d
t.
113) is GRANTED Defendan shall pay Plaintiff $2
G
D.
nt
201,829.00 in attorney fees.

DAT
ust
4
TED: Augu 21, 2014

__________
__________
_____
___
B. L
Lynn Winm
mill
Chief Judge
ited
District Cou
urt
Uni States D

MEMORA
ANDUM DECI
ISION AND ORDER - 8
R