US Ex Rel. Brian Sant v. Biotronik, Inc.
716 F. App’x 590
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Sant, a Biotronik employee, brought a qui tam False Claims Act suit; the United States intervened and settled with Sant and Biotronik, with Biotronik agreeing to pay statutory attorneys’ fees to which Sant’s counsel was entitled.
- Mychal Wilson, Sant’s attorney, moved in district court for recovery of attorneys’ fees under the FCA.
- The district court used the lodestar method: reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates, then considered adjustments.
- The court reduced Wilson’s claimed hours for the underlying litigation by 25% (20% for limited success; 5% for vague entries, block billing, unnecessary tasks, and improper delegation).
- The court reduced hours for the fee petition by 30% (proportional to limited success and inefficiency), set hourly rates at $400 (underlying litigation) and $300 (fees-on-fees), and denied a requested 2x multiplier.
- Wilson appealed; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the reductions, rate determinations, or rejection of a multiplier.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reduction for limited success on underlying litigation | Wilson argued reductions were improper because work was reasonable and contributed value | Biotronik and district court argued Sant achieved limited success so fees should be reduced | Court affirmed 20% reduction for limited success and additional 5% for billing deficiencies |
| Reduction for fees-on-fees (fee petition) | Wilson argued fee-petition hours were reasonable and should not be reduced | Court argued fee-petition award can be proportionally reduced given limited success on underlying claim | Court affirmed 30% reduction for fee-petition hours as proportional and reasonable |
| Hourly rates | Wilson argued for higher hourly rates based on experience and results | District court set $400 (underlying) and $300 (fees-on-fees) after reviewing evidence | Court found rates supported by record and affirmed |
| Lodestar multiplier | Wilson sought 2x multiplier for exceptional results and solo-practice risk | District court declined, having accounted for quality and risk in lodestar; cautioned against double counting | Court upheld denial of multiplier and rejected double-counting of factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866 (9th Cir. 2014) (lodestar is correct framework under federal fee-shifting statutes)
- Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for appellate review of fee awards)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reducing fees for limited success)
- Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) (permitting reductions for billing record deficiencies, including block billing)
- Thompson v. Gomez, 45 F.3d 1365 (9th Cir. 1995) (fees-on-fees may be reduced proportionally to success on underlying petition)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (prohibits double counting when considering lodestar and multipliers)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (addresses limits on contingency multipliers)