Rick Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 4442

Carter appeals district court’s award of $14,268.50 in fees and costs on a $22,585 fee petition under the Longshore Act.
District court reduced compensable hours from 60.9 to 35 and set a blended rate of $400, producing the 37% fee reduction.
District court cited two Kerr factors (fee versus amount at stake; Carter’s responsibility for protracted litigation) but provided minimal analysis otherwise.
District court averaged senior ($500) and associate ($300) rates to derive $400, and may have ignored paralegal time ($150 rate) despite 6.9 hours worked.
Ninth Circuit vacates and remands to articulate the basis for the fee determination with greater specificity, citing Moreno and Costa and requiring explanation sufficient for appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court adequately explained the fee reduction.	Carter; reduction unsupported by detailed reasoning.	Caleb Brett; reduction warranted but not adequately explained.	Not adequately explained; vacate and remand for specific articulation.

Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) (twelve Kerr factors guide fee decisions)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1983) (guides reasonableness and need for explanation of fee awards)
Quesada v. Thomason, 850 F.2d 537 (9th Cir. 1988) (reaffirms Kerr factor consideration)
Chalmers v. City of L.A., 796 F.2d 1205 (9th Cir. 1986) (requires articulate reasoning for fee determinations)
Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (explains need for comprehensible explanations when large disparities occur)
Costa v. Commisioner of Social Security Administration, 690 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2012) (requires relatively specific reasons for significant reductions)
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1990) (limits on hourly-rate determinations when evidence supports higher market rate)