Martin Gonzalez, Sr. v. City of Maywood, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18703

Plaintiffs settled eight civil‑rights suits against the City of Maywood for $500,000 total and reserved the right to seek attorney’s fees; the settlement capped fees at $1,000,000 for merits work and $25,000 for the fee application.
Plaintiffs filed a fee application claiming a lodestar of about $2.06 million (after correcting arithmetic errors); they sought $1,025,000 (the stipulation cap).
The district court found the fee request excessive, applied multiple across‑the‑board percentage reductions to the lodestar, reduced proposed hourly rates, denied fees for preparing the fee application, and declined to analyze a state‑law multiplier.
The district court awarded $473,138.24 in fees; Plaintiffs appealed that award.
The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion in its lodestar reductions, rate determinations, denial of fees‑on‑fees, and failure to consider a state‑law multiplier.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper method to compute lodestar and across‑the‑board cuts	District court should use submitted billing records and, if cuts are needed, explain percentages	Cuts justified by voluminous/defective billing	Court: district must compute lodestar from reasonable hours; if >10% cut, must give concise, specific reasons for chosen percentages; existing cuts inadequately explained → remand
Appropriate hourly rates	Use prevailing market rates in Central District based on attorney experience and fee evidence submitted	Proposed rates were excessive; court can exercise discretion	Court: rates must be based on prevailing market rates with satisfactory evidence; district court erred by arbitrarily reducing all rates 25% and choosing paralegal rate without adequate explanation → remand
Fees for preparing the fee application (fees‑on‑fees)	Fees spent on fee motion are compensable under §1988	Court may deny if presentation is abusive or meritless	Court: fees‑on‑fees are compensable; one‑sentence denial insufficient; district must apply lodestar to fee‑application time on remand
State‑law multiplier under California law	District should analyze whether a multiplier is warranted	Court discretion to apply or not	Court: district failed to address state‑law multiplier; silence prevents meaningful review → must analyze and explain on remand

Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2005) (fee rates must reflect prevailing market in relevant community)
Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) (district may use across‑the‑board percentage cuts but must explain reductions >10%)
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (10% ‘haircut’ exception; requirements for explaining larger cuts)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method: reasonable hours × reasonable rate; adjustments for results obtained)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (hourly rates are measured by prevailing market rates)
Ballen v. City of Redmond, 466 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2006) (lodestar as presumptively reasonable fee)
Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (court must determine prevailing hourly rate in forum for comparable attorneys)
Anderson v. Director, OWCP, 91 F.3d 1322 (9th Cir. 1996) (time spent preparing fee applications is compensable)
McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2009) (exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours)