24 Cited authorities

Buckhannon Board Care Home v. West Va. D.H.H.R
532 U.S. 598 (2001) Cited 3,802 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that the ordinary meaning of "prevailing party" in 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 allows attorneys’ fees only when there is a "material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties."
Moreno v. Sacramento
534 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,260 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"
Welch v. Metropolitan Life
480 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 946 times
Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates
National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense
675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982) Cited 524 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a fee application must "contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done"
Davy v. Central Intelligence Agency
550 F.3d 1155 (D.C. Cir. 2008) Cited 146 times
Holding that fourth factor weighed against agency where agency took more than one year to process documents and provided no legal basis in response to a second FOIA request
Jianping Li v. Keisler
505 F.3d 913 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 97 times
Holding that a circuit mediator's remand orders furthered the petitioner's goals and thus constituted material alterations in the legal relationship between the parties for purposes of Buckhannon
Preservation Coalit. v. Federal Tran. A.
356 F.3d 444 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 74 times
Holding that Buckhannon does not limit fee awards to enforceable judgments on the merits and consent decrees
Oregon Natural Desert Ass'n v. Locke
572 F.3d 610 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 62 times
Holding that a post-judgment attorney fee award requires a separate appeal
Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
845 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2012) Cited 47 times
Concluding that Ninth Circuit's holding that lower court had erred in applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) by requiring each party to bear its own fees before the 14–day time for filing a fee motion had expired was a purely procedural victory
Miller v. Holzmann
575 F. Supp. 2d 2 (D.D.C. 2008) Cited 46 times
Holding rates charged by Wilmer Hale to be reasonable despite 38 percent variance with Laffey Matrix
Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,179 times 556 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

Hiken et al v. Department of Defense et al

24 Cited authorities

Holding that the ordinary meaning of "prevailing party" in 42 U.S.C. § 3613(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12205 allows attorneys’ fees only when there is a "material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties."

Holding that a court may impose a discretionary 10 percent "haircut"

Holding district court on remand could reduce requested rates based on "evidence that undermines the reasonableness of the rate requested" although the party opposing the request for fees had not previously introduced any evidence undermining requested rates

Holding that a fee application must "contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done"

Holding that fourth factor weighed against agency where agency took more than one year to process documents and provided no legal basis in response to a second FOIA request

Holding that a circuit mediator's remand orders furthered the petitioner's goals and thus constituted material alterations in the legal relationship between the parties for purposes of Buckhannon

Holding that Buckhannon does not limit fee awards to enforceable judgments on the merits and consent decrees

Holding that a post-judgment attorney fee award requires a separate appeal

Concluding that Ninth Circuit's holding that lower court had erred in applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) by requiring each party to bear its own fees before the 14–day time for filing a fee motion had expired was a purely procedural victory

Holding rates charged by Wilmer Hale to be reasonable despite 38 percent variance with Laffey Matrix

Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party