831 F.3d 686
6th Cir.2016Background
- In 2010 a district court entered a consent decree (the Decree) requiring Ohio to count certain provisional ballots (SSN‑4 voters and some wrong‑precinct ballots caused by poll‑worker error); the Decree ran through June 30, 2013.
- In 2012 Ohio officials sought to vacate or limit the Decree after state developments; related suits (NEOCH and SEIU Local 1) produced expedited district‑court rulings and this court affirmed key relief protecting correct‑location/wrong‑precinct ballots caused by poll‑worker error.
- Plaintiffs obtained (1) defense of the Decree in 2012, (2) a 2012 preliminary injunction (converted to a 2013 permanent injunction) protecting wrong‑precinct votes caused by poll‑worker error, and (3) a 2013 one‑cycle extension of the Decree; defendants mostly did not appeal the extension or the permanent injunction.
- Plaintiffs moved under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for attorneys’ fees for work on the 2012–2013 litigation and the fee litigation; the district court applied the lodestar, awarded ~$2.23 million for ~6,147 hours, but capped “fees‑for‑fees” recovery at 3% of the main‑case hours per Coulter.
- On appeal defendants challenged reasonableness of hours and rates; plaintiffs cross‑appealed the Coulter cap and urged its abrogation in light of Jean and other authority.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s hours and most rates, vacated and remanded as to the California counsel (Altshuler Berzon) rates for further explanation, and abrogated Coulter’s 3%/5% presumptive cap on fees‑for‑fees, remanding fee‑for‑fees for reconsideration under Hensley/Jean principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the number of hours claimed was reasonable | Hours were necessary given expedited schedule, complex novel constitutional and procedural issues, voluminous discovery, and multi‑party representation | Hours excessive, duplicative, overstaffed, block billing, unnecessary travel and conferencing | Affirmed district court: hours were reasonable; substantial deference to district court’s on‑the‑ground factual judgment |
| Whether claimed hourly rates were reasonable (local and out‑of‑town counsel) | Rates reflect prevailing market for experienced election and civil‑rights counsel; out‑of‑town expertise justified | Many awarded rates (esp. high rates for Altshuler Berzon SF attorneys) exceeded local market and precedent | Affirmed most rate awards as within district court discretion; vacated/remanded rates for Altshuler Berzon attorneys for further findings and adjustment |
| Whether Coulter’s 3%/5% presumptive cap on fees‑for‑fees remains valid | Coulter cap unjustified; Jean and Hensley require reasonableness review without a rigid cap | Defendants urged continued application of Coulter to limit fee‑for‑fee awards | Sixth Circuit abrogated Coulter cap as inconsistent with Jean; remanded fees‑for‑fees for reconsideration under Hensley/Jean reasonableness standard |
| Whether fees for preparing and litigating fee petitions are compensable | Fully compensable if reasonably incurred and tied to success; denying would undercut § 1988’s purpose | Cap and limits are needed to prevent disproportionate fee‑on‑fee litigation and encourage settlement | Court held fees‑for‑fees are compensable and subject to the lodestar reasonableness analysis; district courts can adjust for excess but not by rigid percentage cap |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (reasonableness lodestar method governs § 1988 fees)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (prevailing market rates govern reasonable hourly rate)
- Commissioner, I.N.S. v. Jean, 496 U.S. 154 (EAJA: fees‑for‑fees governed by Hensley reasonableness; no separate justification standard)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (district courts must provide specific, reasonably detailed explanation for fee awards)
- Coulter v. Tennessee, 805 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1986) (abrogated here insofar as it imposed 3%/5% cap on fees‑for‑fees)
- Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 696 F.3d 580 (6th Cir. 2012) (appeal affirming preliminary injunction aspects relevant to the underlying merits and remedies)
- Hunter v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 635 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 2011) (background on Ohio provisional ballot litigation)