Henderson v. Carter CA2/5
Filed 9/11/13 Henderson v. Carter CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
BILL HENDERSON, B243220
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC23154) v.
DEXTER CARTER,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rex Heeseman, Judge. Affirmed. Akudinobi & Ikonte, Emmanuel C. Akudinobi and Chijioke O. Ikonte, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Coleman & Associates, Lawyers, John M. Coleman and Eric R. Schaefer, for Defendant and Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant, Dexter Carter, appeals from an amended judgment on a special verdict awarding attorney fees to plaintiff, Bill Henderson. The award of attorney fees followed a favorable plaintiff’s verdict in a case litigated pursuant to title 42 United States Code section 1983 (“section 1983”).1 Plaintiff was awarded attorney fees of $109,977. Plaintiff eventually sought $549,885 in attorney fees. Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by not further reducing or denying plaintiff’s award of attorney fees. We affirm the amended judgment.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
We provided a detailed factual background of this case in a prior opinion. (Henderson v. Carter (Aug. 20, 2013, B241994) [nonpub. opn.].) We need not repeat it here. Plaintiff previously appealed the trial court’s aforementioned reduction of his attorney fees request. We found the trial court did not abuse its discretion. On April 27, 2011, plaintiff prevailed in a jury retrial against defendant and was awarded $17,940.80. On August 25, 2011, plaintiff moved for an award of reasonable attorney fees pursuant to section 1988. Plaintiff’s attorney billed at a rate of $250 to $450 per hour over the course of the litigation. This amounted to $1,586,887.70 for 5,054.8 hours. Plaintiff initially requested a multiplier of 1.5 for a total amount of $2,380,331.55. Following a hearing before the trial court, plaintiff’s attorneys submitted a supplemental brief. Plaintiff’s attorneys reduced their hours to 1,832.95 at a flat billing rate of $300 per hour. Plaintiff requested attorney fees in the amount of $549,885. On February 28, 2012, the trial court issued an order granting plaintiff’s attorney fees motion in part. The trial court noted plaintiff’s initial request of $2,380,331.55 was
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)