United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT RE: TAX CONSEQUENCES
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the court on the above-referenced motion
(Dkt. 254). The court is familiar with the records and files
herein and all documents filed in support of and in
opposition to the motion, including supplemental declarations
filed by plaintiff (Dkts. 270, 271). For the reasons stated
below, the motion should be granted in part and denied in
a disability discrimination case brought under the Americans
With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, and the
Washington Law Against Discrimination. After a seven-day
trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict for plaintiff on
her ADA claims, but ruled against her on the parallel WLAD
claims, and awarded her $1, 094, 260.00 in damages ($221,
566.00 for past wages, $223, 054.00 for future wages, and
$650, 000.00 for emotional distress). Judgment was entered
after capping the emotional distress damages at $300, 000.00,
pursuant to the ADA statute. A total judgment was entered of
$744, 620.00. Plaintiff now requests fees and litigation
expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205. Taxable costs in
the sum of $11, 457.73 have been taxed by the Clerk's
Office. The Clerk deducted $900.00 for daily trial
transcripts from the plaintiff's cost bill. See
Docket 273. It is clear that plaintiff is entitled to fees
and expenses of litigation. Defendant objects to some of the
amounts claimed by plaintiff in its opposition to
plaintiff's motion (Dkt. 266).
determine what attorney's fees are reasonable, the court
must arrive at a “lodestar amount, ” that is,
multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a
reasonable hourly rate. Jordan v Multnomah County,
799 F.2d 1262, 1265 (9th Cir. 1986) (quoting
Hensley v Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). From
the presumptively reasonable lodestar amount, the court may
make upward or downward adjudgments on the basis of the
Kerr factors (Kerr v Screen Actors Guild,
Inc., 526 F.2d 67, -70 (9th Cir. 1975)),
provided that those adjustments have not been subsumed in the
lodestar calculation. Camacho v Bridgeport Fin.,
Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 982 (9th Cir. 2008).
Under Kerr, the court considers the following
1. The time and labor required.
2. The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved.
3. The skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
4. The preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to
acceptance of the case.
5. The customary fee.
6. Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
7. The time limitations imposed by the client or the