Ingram v. Oroudjian
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15399
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Appellants Cecil Ingram and the Fair Housing Council sued Armine Oroudjian and Antony Abelyan under the Fair Housing Act and California law for housing discrimination.
- Ingram, disabled and wheelchair-bound, lived in an apartment owned by Oroudjian and managed by Abelyan; a state unlawful detainer action followed when rent check was not honored.
- While the state case proceeded, the federal action advanced; Ingram ultimately retained possession after the state action.
- After settlement discussions failed, the case settled for $30,000 to Ingram and $2,000 to the Fair Housing Council; Appellants had demanded $425,000 opening and rejected a later offer.
- Appellants sought attorney fees totaling $88,857.50; the district court awarded $30,485.00.
- The Ninth Circuit reviews the district court’s fee decision for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May settlement negotiations be considered in fee awards? | Ingram/ FHCouncil contend settlement evidence supports award. | Appellees argue settlement history justifies reductions. | Yes; district court may consider settlement negotiations in determining fees. |
| Should fees for opposing summary judgment be awarded? | Fees for responding to summary judgment were reasonable and necessary. | Court erred by awarding those fees since litigation could have settled earlier. | No; district court did not abuse discretion denying those hours. |
| Was time spent briefing Younger abstention properly excluded? | Abstention-related briefing should be compensated as reasonable work. | Court properly deducted abstention-related hours as unnecessary work. | Yes; district court did not abuse discretion in deducting abstention hours. |
| Is $350 hourly rate, or similar, reasonable for these attorneys? | Higher rates requested ($475, $375) are market rates for skilled counsel. | Market evidence supports $350–$400; the court’s rate of $325–$375 is reasonable. | Yes; district court did not abuse discretion in setting $350 hourly rate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lohman v. Duryea Borough, 574 F.3d 163 (3d Cir.2009) (settlement offers can inform fee awards to measure success)
- Parke v. First Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 368 F.3d 999 (8th Cir.2004) (settlement evidence informs fee calculation)
- Moriarty v. Svec, 233 F.3d 955 (7th Cir.2000) (settlement consideration in fee awards)
- Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir.1986) (district court best positioned to determine reasonable hours)
- Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir.1988) (courts may rely on their knowledge of customary rates)
- In re U.S. Golf Corp., 639 F.2d 1197 (5th Cir.1981) (courts may rely on judge’s familiarity with market rates)