Hagen v. City of Eugene et al

Filing 124

ORDER: Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees 110 in the amount of $108,099.39; Plaintiff's Bill of Costs 111 is granted in the amount of $1,319.31. Signed on 6/5/12 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (sln)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 14 o R D E R Civ. No. 06:10-CV-6100-AA BRIAN HAGEN, 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF EUGENE, PETE KERNS, JENNIFER BILLS, AND TOM EICHHORN, 19 Defendants. 20 21 AIKEN, Chief Judge: 22 Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs. 23 Defendants object to plaintiff's fee request but do not oppose 24 plaintiff's Bill of Costs. 25 On March 23, 2012, judgment 26 plaintiff in accordance with the 27 brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 28 1988 (b), 1 - ORDER the court, in its § was entered jury verdict. 1983. in favor The case was Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. discretion, may of award § reasonable 1 attorney's fees to the prevailing party for actions brought under 2 section 1983. Plaintiff 3 moves attorney's s in the amount of 4 $108,114. 5 $370.00 per hour. 6 incurred by plaintiff, but do oppose the hourly rates requested. 7 Plaintiff requests reimbursement for 292.2 hours at intiff Defendants do not oppose the number of hours ies on the 2008 Oregon State Bar Economic Survey 8 holding that 78% of the respondents with expe 9 with plaintiff's counsel bill between $200 and $400 per hour. 10 Therefore, plaintiff argues that $300 per hour is a reasonable 11 hourly charge. 12 experience" brought to this case, plaintiff argues that an upward 13 adjustment to 14 inflation, the reasonable hourly rate becomes $369.95 15 (inflation rate 16 total fee request of $108,099.39. 17 ence commensurate However, based on the "specialized training and $350 r hour is reasonable. Adjusting for hour 5.7% in 2012) multiplied by 292.2 hours for a Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the Oregon State 18 Bar's 2008 survey of the OSB Civil ghts section notes that the 19 average hourly rate for First Amendment litigation was $225 to 20 $274 per hour.l 21 dollars, 22 Applying 23 defendants is $264.25 per hour multiplied by 292.2 hours for a 24 total fee award of $77,213.85. 25 Civil Rights Section survey shows that 45% of the respondents Defendants suggest an hourly rate of $250 in 2008 adjusted for inflation, would be an appropriate rate. the 5.7% in ation rate, the I note, rate however, suggested by that the OSB 26 27 28 Defendants also cite to a 2007 Economic Survey by the Oregon State Bar. The court will disregard this survey as it was supplanted by the 2008 Oregon State Bar Survey. 2 - ORDER 1 reported 2 respondents reported a hourly rate of $300 to $399. 3 fact 4 experience, 5 to $399 respondent category. 6 a that hourly rate plaintiff's of $200 counsel to has $299, 28 and years 27% of of the Given the litigation is reasonable that his fees fall within the $300 Therefore, I find that $300 per hour is a reasonable hourly 7 fee charged by plaintiff's counsel. I also find it reasonable 8 and appropriate to adjust upward his fee by $50 per hour due to 9 the specialized training and experience he brought to this case. 10 That results in a total hourly charge of $350 per hour. 11 in the 5.7 percentage rate for inflation, 12 rate for legal services by plainti 13 hour. 14 multiplied by $369.95 per hour, results in a attorney fee award 15 of $108,099.39. The attorney hours 16 Adding a reasonable hourly 's counsel is $369.95 per worked in this cases total 292.2, CONCLUSION 17 Plainti 's motion for attorney's fees (doc. 110) is granted 18 in the amount of $108,099.39. 19 111) is granted in the amount 20 Dated this ~ay (doc. $1319.31. IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Plaintiff's Bill of Costs of June 2012. I I I 22 23 I 24 25 Ann Aiken United States District Judge f 1 27 I 28 ! 26 ! i l' !' 3 - ORDER f f

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?