Kerkeles v. City of San Jose
243 Cal. App. 4th 88
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Michael Kerkeles sued the City of San Jose and Officer Matthew Christian under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state tort statutes after criminal charges based on allegedly fabricated evidence were dismissed.
- The trial court granted significant pretrial adjudications against Kerkeles; this court reversed portions of that dismissal in Kerkeles I and remanded for trial or other disposition.
- The parties settled on the eve of the scheduled trial for $150,000 and an agreement permitting Kerkeles to seek attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; the settlement expressly authorized only federal-fee applications and included an integration clause.
- Kerkeles moved for $2.35 million in fees (including multipliers and fees-on-fees) based on ~2,420 hours and reduced hourly rates; he sought a 1.5 multiplier for contingent risk.
- The superior court drastically reduced rates and applied a 50% reduction to the lodestar, denied a state-law multiplier under CCP § 1021.5, and awarded about $436,808 in fees plus costs; Kerkeles appealed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding the superior court’s explanation for rate and hour cuts was legally inadequate under federal § 1988 standards and ordering reconsideration with a clear, specific rationale.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of fee entitlement (state vs federal) | Kerkeles: settlement silence doesn’t bar recovery under CCP § 1021.5 in addition to § 1988 | City: settlement expressly authorized only § 1988 fees; no basis for § 1021.5 | Court: settlement limited fee claim to § 1988; CCP § 1021.5 not available under this agreement |
| Proper method to calculate fees under § 1988 | Kerkeles: lodestar using claimed hours and market rates; plus 1.5 multiplier for contingent risk | City: reduce hours and apply lower community rates; deny multiplier | Court: use lodestar method and federal standards; remand because lower court failed to adequately explain reductions and multiplier analysis |
| Adequacy of trial court’s reductions in hours and rates | Kerkeles: reductions were arbitrary and unsupported; counsel provided declarations of prevailing rates and skill | City: fees excessive; many hours unreasonable; offered rebuttal declarations with lower rate benchmarks | Court: reductions were inadequately explained (dramatic across-the-board cuts); remand for reasoned findings and application of lodestar framework |
| Enhancement for contingency risk | Kerkeles: contingent risk justifies multiplier under state law and should be considered | City: multiplier inappropriate under federal § 1988; contingent risk is not a basis for enhancement | Court: contingent-risk enhancement generally not allowed under federal law (risk typically subsumed in lodestar); superior court must explain if it finds rare, exceptional basis to adjust lodestar |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (settling lodestar approach and reductions for unreasonable hours)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (burden to show prevailing market rates)
- Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. 546 (presumption that a properly supported lodestar is reasonable)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (limits on lodestar enhancements; need for specific findings)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir.) (requirement for clear explanation for percentage cuts and limits on across-the-board reductions)
- Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir.) (permissibility and scrutiny of percentage reductions for voluminous fee requests)
- Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal.4th 1122 (California) (state-law rule allowing multiplier for contingent risk under certain circumstances)