N.D. California cuts civil rights fee award 66.8%, including for block billing

What happened

The plaintiff in Johnson v. City of Santa Rosa et al sought $340,677.50 in fees under 42 U.S.C. section 1988. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley awarded $113,044.82, a reduction of $227,632.68. The court fixed reduced hourly rates for two attorneys, deducted hours as unnecessary, deducted 4.5 hours it could not separate because of block billing, cut 30% of one attorney's hours for one-hour billing increments, applied a 10% haircut partly for block billing, a further 10% for block billing and overbilling, and a 15% multiplier for limited success.

What the court said

Given the block billing, the Court is unable to separate non-compensable time spent on the Order to Show Cause from work on Rule 26 disclosures

the Court exercises its discretion to impose a 10% “haircut,” in part because of Plaintiff’s counsel’s block billing

The court also reduced the award for: hourly rate reduced, other, other, other, other, other, excessive hours, excessive hours, limited success.

Why it matters

The order shows that block billing can cost a fee applicant twice: specific hours become impossible to separate and are deducted, and the practice can also support an across-the-board percentage cut. It also shows courts stacking percentage reductions on top of rate and hour adjustments.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Record one task per entry, each with its own time.
• Write the entry when the work happens, not at the end of the week.
• If a task really is one unit of work, say what it was and what it produced.

Cite this ruling

See hourly rates the N.D. California approves and attorney fee motions in California federal courts.

Figures and quotes are taken from the opinion and checked against its text. Spot an error? Email team@legaltime.ai with the case name and we will correct it. Summaries of public court opinions. Not legal advice.