Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue v. George Bengal

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
Nos. 13-3988 and 13-4092
_____________
SIXTH ANGEL SHEPHERD RESCUE, INC;
TERRY ELIZABETH SILVA
v.
GEORGE BENGAL; NICOLE WILSON; PENNSYLVANIA SPCA
Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue, Inc.,
Appellant in No. 13-3988
George Bengal, Nicole Wilson, and Pennsylvania SPCA
Appellants in No. 13-4092
_____________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 2-10-cv-01733
District Judge: The Honorable Berle M. Schiller
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 9, 2015
Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and BARRY, Circuit Judges
____________________
JUDGMENT ORDER
____________________
This cause came on to be considered on the record from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was submitted on October 9, 2015.
The cross-appeals in this civil rights action challenge the District Court’s resolution of a
motion for attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. George Bengal, Nicole
Wilson, and the Pennsylvania SPCA, defendants in the District Court, conceded that
Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue, Inc., was entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.
Nonetheless, the defendants objected to several aspects of Sixth Angel’s fee petition.
The District Court thoughtfully considered the motion and its opposition in a well-
reasoned decision in which it reduced the amount of the requested award. These timely
appeals followed.1
Sixth Angel contends that the District Court erred in several respects by: (1)
reducing counsel’s hourly rate; (2) striking time expended by counsel; (3) refusing to
consider an updated fee petition; (4) denying a multiplier for the delay endured; and (5)
rejecting as compensable certain costs.2 The defendants also claim that the District Court
erred by failing to account for Sixth Angel’s limited success.
“We review the reasonableness of an award of attorney’s fees for an abuse of
discretion.” Washington v. Phila. Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1034 (3d
Cir. 1996). After reviewing the record in this matter and the thorough opinion of the
District Court, we conclude that the District Court did not err in granting in part and
1
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367. Appellate
jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
Sixth Angel’s opening brief also asserts that the District Court erred by failing to
address the state court proceeding. We need not address this issue because, contrary to
the requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8), Sixth Angel did not present citations to the
2
denying in part the motion for attorney’s fees and costs. Accordingly, for substantially
the same grounds set forth in the District Court opinion, we will affirm the District
Court’s September 23, 2013 order.
On consideration whereof, it is now hereby ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the
order of the District Court entered September 23, 2013, be and the same is hereby
AFFIRMED. The parties shall bear their own costs.
By the Court,
s/D. Brooks Smith
Circuit Judge
Attest:
s/Marcia M. Waldron
Clerk
DATED: November 4, 2015
legal authority and the parts of the record on which it relies. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1
F.3d 176, 182 (3d Cir. 1993).
3