Saldivar v. Rodela, 894 F. Supp. 2d 916

Hague/ICARA action to return child; Petitioner Saldivar seeks attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3) after prevailing on merits.
Judgment entered June 22, 2012 ordering Respondent to surrender child; Court instructed itemization of fees and costs.
Petitioner filed fee application July 7, 2012 seeking $60,022.00 in attorneys’ fees, $11,718.16 costs, and $1,398.38 out-of-pocket expenses.
Respondent argued no award or reduced award due to Petitioner’s pro bono representation and alleged unclean hands; Respondent later asserted financial hardship.
Court retained jurisdiction over the fee petition while appeal was pending; amended decision addresses merits and amount of award.
Court grants in part and denies in part Saldivar’s fee application, with detailed lodestar analysis and adjustments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether publicly funded legal aid may recover fees under §11607(b)(3).	Saldivar's counsel is a public legal aid entity; expenses incurred on her behalf are recoverable.	Allowing such recovery would illegitimately reward publicly funded entities and contravene the reservation understanding.	Yes; legal aid entities may recover under §11607(b)(3) when incurred on behalf of the petitioner.
Whether Saldivar’s unclean hands bar applies to fee recovery.	No, Saldivar’s conduct is not related to this litigation.	Saldivar’s Mexican litigation and other actions show unclean hands.	Unclean hands not a bar; no relation to the current fee recovery.
Whether the lodestar calculation and adjustments justify the awarded amount.	Need for reasonable hours and rates; lodestar should reflect reasonable efforts.	Time entries include duplications, non-recoverable state-court work, and excess hours; reductions warranted.	Lodestar calculated; reductions for trial preparation, preliminary injunction, duplicate tasks, and non-recoverable time; final award approved.
What is the final monetary award and allowable costs/expenses.	Petitioner seeks full requested fees and costs.	Respondent’s finances warrant a reduction in fees; some costs should be disallowed or limited.	Total award: $15,445.30 for fees and costs; $210.33 out-of-pocket expenses; Respondent to pay TRLA and Saldivar as specified.

Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 394 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2004) (contextual standard for award of fees or expenses under Hague/ICARA)
Miller v. Amusement Enters., Inc., 426 F.2d 534 (5th Cir. 1970) (concept of incurring attorney fees via legal aid or public counsel)
Sellers v. Wollman, 510 F.2d 119 (5th Cir. 1975) (fee awards to publicly funded legal aid entities under similar statutes)
Rodriguez v. Taylor, 569 F.2d 1231 (3d Cir. 1977) (fee awards where public counsel provided services)
Torres v. Sachs, 538 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1976) (fee awards under VRA; precludes discounting for public counsel)
Aldinger v. Segler, 157 F. App’x 317 (1st Cir. 2005) (necessary expenses under Hague/ICARA—limits on non-recoverable items)
Cuellar v. Joyce, 603 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2010) (travel/expense considerations in Hague cases)
H.R. Rep. 100-525, 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 386 (—) (legislative history supporting broad interpretation of ‘on behalf of’)
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (Johnson factors for adjusting lodestar)
Hopwood v. Texas, 236 F.3d 256 (5th Cir. 2000) (lodestar justification standards)