Andrew Roberts v. City & County of Honolulu, 938 F.3d 1020

Roberts (permanent U.S. resident) sued City & County of Honolulu under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the City denied a firearm permit based on a policy targeting permanent residents.
Roberts served a demand letter (initially seeking $8,000, later $12,000) and threatened injunctive motions; the City acknowledged receipt of the complaint but not the demand letter and later indicated willingness to discuss settlement.
Parties reached agreement on substantive relief but not on attorney’s fees; a proposed settlement was exchanged in December and the final settlement was signed January 21, 2016. Roberts did not file the threatened motions.
Roberts moved for attorney’s fees ($40,191.43). The magistrate recommended reduced hourly rates and disallowed time spent on unfiled motions; the district court adopted lower rates but credited some hours on the unfiled motions up to November 25, 2015, and awarded $21,302.95.
Roberts appealed, arguing the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in setting hourly rates and abused its discretion by denying fees for work after November 25, 2015.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded: it held the district court used the wrong method to determine the prevailing hourly rate and instructed the district court to make a specific finding about when the settlement became final (and whether post-November 25 work was reasonable).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court applied the correct legal standard to determine the prevailing hourly rate for the lodestar	Holcomb’s declarations and supporting affidavits established prevailing market rates in the District of Hawaii and should have been credited	The City pointed to variation in the declarations and urged reliance on prior fee awards in the district to determine reasonable rates	Court held district court erred by wholesale rejecting counsel declarations and relying primarily on prior awards; remanded to determine prevailing rate in the relevant community for comparable attorneys
Whether fees for time spent on the Unfiled Motions after Nov. 25, 2015, were reasonable	Roberts argued those hours were reasonably expended because settlement was not finalized and drafting motions was prudent	City argued continued motion work after a settlement-in-principle was unnecessary and reflected wasted or churning hours	Court remanded: district court must make specific factual finding when settlement became sufficiently final and determine whether a reasonable attorney would have continued work after Nov. 25

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method and fees should reflect hours reasonably expended; fully compensatory fee for excellent results)
Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court must find prevailing hourly rate in the community; may not rely solely on stale prior awards and must explain its reasoning)
Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2016) (describes lodestar two-step: reasonable hours × reasonable hourly rate; courts may adjust lodestar for factors not subsumed)
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (hours awarded must be determined in light of the circumstances; reasonableness inquiry)
McGrath v. County of Nevada, 67 F.3d 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (remand required if district court fails to explain how it exercised discretion in fee determinations)
McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2009) (trial court abuses discretion if fee award is based on an incorrect view of the law)
Chaudry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2014) (attorney affidavits showing prevailing billing rates are admissible evidence of market rates)
Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2018) (prevailing party status under fee-shifting statutes)