Summary
deducting 20 of 34 hours claimed for Mr. Bahr's work in drafting summary judgment motion in FOIA case
Summary of this case from The Sierra Club v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyOpinion
No. 12-35988 D.C. No. 3:10-cv-01205-HZ
05-19-2014
AUDUBON SOCIETY OF PORTLAND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
Portland, Oregon
Before: GOODWIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Audubon Society of Portland ("Audubon") appeals following the district court's judgment in Audubon's action against the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, assigning error to the order awarding Audubon attorneys' fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. See Barjon v. Dalton, 132 F.3d 496, 500 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court's award of attorneys' fees was not an abuse of discretion. Courts calculate attorneys' fees according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community. See id. "Generally, the relevant community is the forum in which the district court sits." Id. Although the district court is located in Portland, Oregon, its jurisdiction includes the entire state of Oregon. Because Audubon did not provide satisfactory evidence showing that Portland was the appropriate community for purposes of establishing its attorneys' hourly rates, the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying Oregon statewide rates.
AFFIRMED.