Joseph Padgett v. Brian Loventhal, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2856

Padgetts asserted state and federal civil rights claims, and related state law claims, arising from a dispute over a fence height ordinance in Monte Sereno, California.
Defendants included the City, city officials, and a former city employee, all sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state claims.
After trial, only First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Loventhal and Wright survived; the district court dismissed others and the jury awarded nominal/punitive damages to Joseph Padgett on his First Amendment claim against Wright; Darla Padgett prevailed on none.
Post-trial, the district court granted fees to Joseph Padgett totaling about $3.2 million and costs totaling $900,000, and reduced them to $500,000 and $100,000 respectively, while denying costs to prevailing defendants.
The district court vacated and remanded for a detailed explanation of the lodestar methodology and the reasoning behind the fee and cost reductions; Padgetts and defendants appealed.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court failed to show its work and justify reductions, and ordered a more complete explanation while preserving the basic framework of the lodestar approach.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court adequately explain its lodestar reductions?	Padgett argues the court failed to show work applying the lodestar method.	Loventhal/Wright contend the court reasonably applied the factors and reductions.	No; more explanation needed to review discretion.
Was the costs and fee reductions explained sufficiently and consistently with applicable law?	Padgett contends reductions were unexplained and inconsistent with Hensley/Gisbrecht.	Defendants assert reductions were permissible under partial success and overall discretion.	No; the district court must articulate how reductions were computed.
Should prevailing defendants be denied costs without explicit justification?	Padgett challenges denial of costs; seeks explanation of rule-applied reasoning.	Prevailing defendants argue discretionary denial is permissible in some cases.	No; unexplained denial of costs cannot be reviewed on appeal.
Is vacatur and remand appropriate to require a more complete explanation of fees and costs?	Padgett supports remand for proper accounting and reasoning.	Defendants may view remand as unnecessary if reasoned steps were taken.	Yes; vacate and remand for detailed explanation of lodestar calculations.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar and partial success framework)
Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002) (reasonableness and adjustments to hours and costs)
Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359 (9th Cir. 1996) (considerations in fee reductions)
Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) (must explain fee calculations to allow meaningful review)
Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2006) (require detailing hours, rates, and apportionment)
Ass’n of Mexican-Am. Educators v. State of California, 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc; require reasons for not awarding costs)
City of Holyoke Gas & Elec. Dep’t v. FERC, 954 F.2d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (show your work; arithmetic explanation)
Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) (remand for explanation of fee award)
McCown v. City of Fontana, 550 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2008) (require explanation for fee decisions)
McGrath v. Cnty. of Nevada, 67 F.3d 248 (9th Cir. 1995) (fee award explanations necessary)
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1990) (show reasoning for fee decisions)
Jordan v. Multnomah Cnty., 815 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1987) (fees where multiple claims; explain allocation)
Thomas v. City of Tacoma, 410 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2005) (mixed results and reasonable fees)