United States v. $28,000.00 in U.S. Currency
802 F.3d 1100
9th Cir.2015Background
- Federal agents seized $28,000 from Robert Moser during a search for marijuana; the government initiated civil forfeiture proceedings.
- Moser retained solo forfeiture specialist Richard Barnett under a contingency agreement (greater of one-third of recovery or statutory fees).
- Barnett moved to suppress evidence based on Miranda/warrantless-search claims; the district court granted suppression and summary judgment, returning the funds.
- Moser sought CAFRA attorney’s fees of $50,775 (101.55 hours at $500/hr); supported by five declarations from local practitioners, including three forfeiture specialists.
- The government opposed only by arguing fees should be capped at the contingency amount; it submitted no contrary evidence on rates or hours.
- The district court awarded $14,000, reducing the hourly rate to $300, cutting billed hours from 101.55 to 60, and further reducing the lodestar for the contingency agreement; Moser appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unopposed, evidentiary-supported fee request must be awarded in full | Moser: government’s failure to contest rates/hours waived challenge; district court should have awarded full requested lodestar | Gov’t: (below) argued fee capped by contingency agreement | Court: No automatic award; applicant still must meet initial evidentiary burden, but unopposed, adequately supported rates/hours are presumed reasonable and normally should be awarded absent valid legal reason to reduce |
| Proper method to determine reasonable hourly rate | Moser: $500/hr supported by five local declarations including forfeiture specialists | Gov’t: no opposing evidence on rate (below relied on contingency cap argument) | Court: District erred by rejecting the declarations, failing to afford the presumption of reasonableness, mischaracterizing forfeiture as criminal work, and improperly relying on stale/irrelevant comparators; remand for correct market-rate determination |
| Whether district court properly reduced claimed hours | Moser: detailed time records; removed some fruitless hours already | District: reduced hours substantially, stating Barnett gave government arguments too much respect and should have spent less time | Court: Reduction unsupported — district identified only 6.75 objectionable hours but cut 41.55; court must explain deductions or perform justified across-the-board cut; remand for proper hours analysis |
| Whether lodestar may be reduced because of contingency fee agreement | Moser: contingency agreement already considered in selecting rates; lodestar should not be reduced further | District: reduced lodestar by $4,000 because of contingency agreement | Court: Error — contingent-fee existence is subsumed in lodestar and may not be used as a separate downward adjustment; remand to restore lodestar unless other valid reductions justified |
Key Cases Cited
- Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (lodestar: market rate × reasonable hours)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (applicant must produce satisfactory evidence of reasonableness)
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (prevailing-market-rate standard; affidavits acceptable evidence)
- Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 1392 (9th Cir. 1992) (detailed documentation of hours required)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (exclude hours not reasonably expended)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (strong presumption that lodestar is reasonable)
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1990) (uncontested supported rate presumed reasonable)
- Van Gerwen v. Guar. Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2000) (may not rely on contingency agreement to increase or decrease lodestar)