Margaret Hoffman v. Construction Protective Servic

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 06 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGARET A. HOFFMAN, an No. 09-56757
individual, for herself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, D.C. No. 5:03-cv-01006-VAP-
SGL
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and ORDER*
DANIEL LOPEZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CONSTRUCTION PROTECTIVE
SERVICES, INC., a California
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted May 3, 2011**
Pasadena, California
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
In our prior remand order, we approved an attorney’s fee award of $42,000,
but instructed the district court to better articulate its lodestar calculation and its
downward departure from that presumptively reasonable figure. See Hoffman v.
Constr. Protective Servs., Inc., 293 F. App’x. 462, 464 (9th Cir. 2008). The district
court has now adequately explained the basis for the significant reduction from the
amount originally claimed. See McGrath v. Cnty. of Nevada, 67 F.3d 248, 254 (9th
Cir. 1995) (“The significant question is whether the district court’s articulation of
its reasons is sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.”); see also Hensley
v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). However, because the district court
previously ruled that the difficulty of the question, the rights vindicated, and other
factors justified a fee of $42,000, we consider those findings — findings that were
not appealed — to be the law of the case. Thus, we vacate and remand with
direction to reenter an award of attorney’s fees in the amount of $42,000.
No further appeals will be entertained in this case. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at
437 (“A request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.”).
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2
VACATED AND REMANDED.
3