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)
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?