Allenmore Medical Investors, LLC v. City of Tacoma
3:14-cv-05717
W.D. Wash.Jun 15, 2017Background
- AMI sued City of Tacoma and councilmembers alleging discrimination and interference with Walmart-centered development; bench trial conducted; individual councilmembers immunized; City liable for damages to AMI; initial damages awarded around $2.026M; AMI sought $3.242M total including prejudgment interest; counsel sought 20% lodestar enhancement and prejudgment interest; court ultimately awarded $1,045,913.80 in fees and denied prejudgment interest.
- RLG (Rafel Law Group) billed 3,410.7 total hours with rates ranging from $160–$400; 2012–2017 work on AMI’s claims; hours and rates defended as reasonable; significant involvement by partners through trial.
- Court applied the two-step lodestar/multiplier approach and declined enhancements; lodestar found reasonable without enhancement; hours adjusted downward by 15.6 due to non-direct pursuit of litigation.
- Procedural posture included motions for judgment on the pleadings and three summary judgments, with a twelve-day bench trial, leading to partial affirmance of AMI’s damages but with fee and prejudgment interest determinations.
- Final ruling: grant in part and deny in part AMI’s fee request; deny prejudgment interest; award $1,045,913.80 in attorney’s fees to AMI’s counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of attorney rates | RLG rates below market averages. | Rates are market-competitive and reasonable. | Rates reasonable; no enhancement. |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Hours reasonably expended on litigation as a whole. | Reductions for unsuccessful claims and duplicative work warranted. | Hours largely reasonable; some reductions applied. |
| Enhancement of lodestar | 20% enhancement justified by case’s rarity and success. | Enhancement not warranted under Perdue. | No enhancement; lodestar alone approved. |
| Prejudgment interest | Award prejudgment interest to make AMI whole. | City immunity and lack of liquid damages; no prejudgment interest. | Prejudgment interest denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (tests for reasonable fee and partial success; multipliers rare)
- Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) (two-step lodestar/multiplier approach guidance)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (rare and exceptional circumstances for enhancement)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable rate based on market; not actual billing rate)
- Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) (reasonable rate within market range for comparable services)
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (Kerr factors for fee adjustments largely subsumed in lodestar)
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1987) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; adjustments rare)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonableness of hours and private-firm billing norms)
- Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2000) (enumerates Kerr factors; some subsumed in lodestar)
- Teevin v. Wyatt, 75 Wn. App. 110, 876 P.2d 944 (Wash. App. 1994) (Washington immunity vs prejudgment interest considerations (state law context))