Jimmy Yamada; Russell Stewart v. William Snipes

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JIMMY YAMADA; RUSSELL
STEWART,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
and
A-1 A-LECTRICIAN, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM SNIPES, in his official
capacity as chair and member of the
Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission;
TINA PEDRO GOMES, in her official
capacity as vice chair and member of the
Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission;
and ELDON CHING, GREGORY
SHODA and ADRIENNE YOSHIHARA,
in their official capacities as members of
the Hawaii Campaign Spending
Commission,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17845
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00497-JMS-RLP
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
MAY 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 9, 2013
Honolulu, Hawaii
Before: KOZINSKI, FISHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jimmy Yamada and Russell Stewart appeal the district court’s order
awarding them attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. For the reasons
stated here and in a concurrently filed opinion, we affirm in part and reverse in
part.
1. The district court did not abuse its substantial discretion by adopting a 50
percent reduction to the “general tasks” entries in the plaintiffs’ billing records, by
reducing the award for travel time related to the preliminary injunction hearing or
by failing to explain its chosen reductions. The district court found that although
“the subject of campaign finance law is complicated,” and that “this case presented
difficult issues,” the only issue on which plaintiffs prevailed “was certainly not
complicated.” It thus “made clear that it [had] considered the relationship between
the amount of the fee awarded and the results obtained,” taking into account the
plaintiffs’ (particularly A-1’s) limited success in the action. Hensley v. Eckerhart,
461 U.S. 424, 436-37 (1983). See also Fox v. Vice, 131 S. Ct. 2205, 2216 (2011)
2

-- 2 of 3 --

(“The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to
achieve auditing perfection.”).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in setting reasonable hourly
rates for attorneys Coleson, Gallant and Hochberg. Contrary to the plaintiffs’
contentions, the district court did not merely rely on rates awarded in two
dissimilar cases from the district of Hawaii, but instead noted its “familiarity with
counsel’s roles” and recognized the specialized area of First Amendment law in
which the Bopp Law Firm practices. Based on the evidence in the record, the
awarded rates adequately reflect “the prevailing market rates in the relevant
community.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984).
For the reasons stated here and in the contemporaneously filed opinion, the
order of the district court awarding attorney’s fees and costs to Yamada and
Stewart is affirmed in part and reversed in part. Each party shall bear its own costs
on appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
3

-- 3 of 3 --