Rick Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2061
9th Cir.2014Background
- Petitioner Rick Carter sought $22,585 in attorneys’ fees and costs under the Longshore Act after prevailing; the district court awarded $14,268.50.
- The district court used a blended hourly rate of $400 and reduced compensable hours from 60.9 to 35 (about a 40% reduction).
- The court identified the twelve Kerr factors and briefly cited two as most relevant: (1) the disparity between fees incurred ($22,585) and the amount at stake ($3,220.20); and (2) that Carter was not primarily responsible for the case becoming protracted.
- The district court did not explain in detail how it arrived at the blended rate or how it determined which hours to disallow.
- Carter appealed, arguing the district court failed to provide sufficient explanation for the substantial reductions, preventing meaningful appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court provided sufficient explanation for a substantial reduction in requested fees | Carter: the court’s explanation was too brief; large reduction required specific, comprehensible reasons | Respondents: the district court has discretion to determine reasonable fees and may reduce awards | Court: Vacated and remanded — reductions lacked sufficient specificity; district court must articulate reasons more clearly |
| Whether the blended hourly rate selection was appropriate | Carter: blended rate improperly averaged senior and associate rates and appears to ignore paralegal time | Respondents: rate choice is within court’s discretion and need not mirror petitioner’s billing mix | Court: Criticized opaque averaging and possible failure to account for paralegal hours; remand to explain rate calculation |
| Whether the district court adequately applied Kerr factors in fee calculation | Carter: court mentioned Kerr factors but failed to explain how they affected the award | Respondents: court considered Kerr factors and the most relevant ones in its brief statement | Court: Mere mention of Kerr factors insufficient; court must articulate how factors informed the fee decision |
| Whether greater specificity is required when the reduction is sizable | Carter: large disparity between requested and awarded fees triggers obligation for more specific findings | Respondents: general discretion over reductions | Court: Agreed with Carter; under precedents (e.g., Moreno, Costa) sizeable reductions require relatively specific explanations |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee-award courts must provide a clear, concise explanation of reasons)
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (list of twelve factors to consider in fee awards)
- Chalmers v. City of L.A., 796 F.2d 1205 (courts must articulate how they determine reasonable fees; bald amounts insufficient)
- Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (district courts must give comprehensible explanations, more specificity when disparity is large)
- Costa v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 690 F.3d 1132 (significant reductions require relatively specific reasons)
- McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097 (fee determinations must be specific enough for appellate review)
- United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403 (court must indicate basis for hours and rates awarded)