Merriweather Franklin v. Nancy Berryhill
705 F. App'x 661
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Franklin appealed the district court’s partial award of EAJA attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A).
- The fee dispute centered on hours claimed by attorney Ralph Wilborn for briefing in the district court and on appeal.
- The district court reduced Wilborn’s billed briefing time by 20% for unfocused, scattershot briefing that presented many arguments without narrowing to the strongest grounds.
- The district court also cut an additional 11 hours from the opening appellate brief because it largely duplicated Franklin’s summary judgment brief, leaving only limited original writing.
- Franklin challenged both reductions on appeal; the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s hours calculation for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 20% reduction to all of Wilborn’s briefing hours was proper for unfocused, scattershot briefing | Franklin argued the reduction was unwarranted and excessive | District court maintained the briefs raised multiple arguments without winnowing issues, making claimed hours excessive | Affirmed: 20% reduction was within district court’s discretion |
| Whether an additional 11-hour reduction for the opening appellate brief was improper because of overlap with district-court briefing or constituted double-counting | Franklin argued the additional cut duplicated the 20% reduction or left inadequate hours | District court explained the opening brief was largely copied from prior briefing and the extra cut addressed distinct duplication | Affirmed: additional reduction was justified and not a double sanction |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (district courts may exclude excessive, redundant, or unnecessary hours in fee awards)
- Costa v. Comm’r of Social Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review of fee-hour calculations)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (district court must provide concise, comprehensible explanation for fee reductions)
- Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) (district court has superior position to judge reasonableness of billed time)
- Mahoney v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2017) (appellate courts may affirm on any basis supported by the record)