Ingram v. Oroudjian: Ninth Circuit Issues Fee Award Decision

The Ninth Circuit touched on a number of attorney fee issues in Ingram v. Oroudjian, --- F.3d ----, 2011 WL 3134530 (9th Cir. 7/27/11) . In Ingram, a tenant and a fair housing civil rights advocacy organization brought a discrimination and retaliation action against the owner and manager of an apartment building. After settlement, the district court (C.D. Cal., Judge Feess) awarded the plaintiffs attorney fees, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit held:

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion by considering the settlement negotiations (plaintiffs had rejected the same settlement offer that they later accepted) in deciding a reasonable attorney fee;

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing attorney fees for 40 hours spent opposing a summary judgment motion because the plaintiffs should have pursued settlement more aggressively earlier in the case, and plaintiffs' counsel unduly extended the duration of the litigation;

3. The district court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing attorney fees spent briefing an issue with which counsel should have been familiar; and

4. The district court did not abuse its discretion by relying on its own familiarity with the legal market in setting counsel's reasonable hourly rates, particularly where plaintiffs failed to submit affidavits from local attorneys or from a fee expert to show that the requested rates matched the prevailing market rates.

The opinion is available here.