Bywaters v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4257
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- URA fee-shifting governs attorneys’ fees; URA 42 U.S.C. § 4654(c) awards fees as reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses.
- District court awarded fees under lodestar method using DC market rates and the Updated Laffey Matrix.
- Court reduced hours and applied DC rates, then reduced the lodestar by 50% due to ‘amount involved and results obtained’ and other factors.
- Court found lodestar adjustments permissible only in rare, exceptional cases and not for these factors post-lodestar calculation.
- Court acknowledged an agreement that allowed a contingent-fee option but held it could be considered only within lodestar calculation, not as a cap after calculating lodestar.
- This appeal challenges whether factors were misapplied and whether forum rates should determine the reasonable hourly rate; remand ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may adjust the lodestar after calculation. | Bywaters argues the district court properly used ‘amount involved and results obtained’ as part of the lodestar. | The government contends adjustments are rare and should be post-lodestar reductions. | Remand required to recalculate within lodestar, not after. |
| Whether forum rates must be used for the hourly rate rather than DC market rates. | Bywaters contends forum rates (DC) apply only if local counsel unavailable. | The district court should apply forum rule unless unusual justification exists. | Remand to apply forum rule for reasonable hourly rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar generally reasonable; adjustment limited; “results obtained” subsumed in lodestar)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; avoid double counting; factors subsumed within lodestar)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (U.S. 2010) (enhancements proper only in rare/exceptional circumstances; cannot diverge from lodestar factors)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1992) (uniform interpretation of similar fee-shifting statutes; market rates; consistency)
- Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air v. Pennsylvania, 478 U.S. 546 (U.S. 1986) (enhancement limits; factors subsumed within lodestar; rare adjustments)
- Heisig v. United States, 718 F.2d 1153 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (uniform application of law to Little Tucker Act claims; uniform adjudication)
- McClain v. Lufkin Indus., Inc., 649 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2011) (out-of-district rates when necessary justified by evidence of special expertise or unavailability of local counsel)
- Avera v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (forum rule generally preferred; exceptions when local rates unavailable or insufficient)