Davis v. San Francisco City and County Petition for Rehearing

    taa-fc at Director* *
Jack W. London. Co-Crair 
Tdnv Holbush. vO-Chetf 
Barr c a ReeQan, Secretary 
LuUW Orton T m w  
W/rra Carvel, France Chair 
Willlim F. Atoemah 
^ a r  on AHei 
Alexander Sra'nera 
RcdOT L  Harrii 
WitfimH H u  tie 
Bti! 6ng Hihfl 
Joe* Mode
ObMQn J Liu
Mlo'ioel Q.W LM 
JUd in McKeivey 
wiv am C, McNeill II 
Mar: viorneimer 
Nail H, O’Connell 
Cheryl PolnedhO 
ReCIf! A. Ronenfeld 
aa;iici« Shuler Wllmdor

Joa-I R. Alien 
WHi am Aiaue 
3atl4 Andr»w»
Joaqu r Avila 
Carwon Biker 
Ma-r i- . Bailer 
Area M Beano*
Cara yr Patty Blum 
Retort E. Boncn 
Al Eiorvice 
Rlcierd Beawi 
Hairy 9remord 
Jc^n Buna

rnwwhx
crit'iea m . cruorc
m  am. K. Ccbieniz 
Filer Graham Conn 
vB'iaa Cate 
war n M. CdlllM 
Jpr n Denvlr 
Pa naia 9 Puffy 
Wiiliar I. Sdlund 
Nb i E. Falconer 
Frank E. Para a 
Rataall 9. Farnmord 
Jim F ndery 
Str £hon R. Finn 
Kathleen v. Hahor 
Caiaa.ndra m . Fiippar
Jonh Fioum
Kevin Fdhfl 
C!Wl0« N- F'etbBU 
Rcoert T. F ril 
David M. Furbuah 
Frederick P Furth 
Sa-gio Qaxla*RDcrouet 
Mftrjorw Geld 
Arirony C. Gilbert 
Wonco i Gcddard 
Argro Gon.zaiti 
Robert A. Goodin 
Pi l Gordon 
T*na Grfilo 
c ' ca a. Grubb 
Kennetr 0, Haypnon 
D«vo M h• libra i  
Rooart NiriOh
j«me« 9iytht Hodga 
Jioy jortmuri 
Kevin Johnson 
LiwenoO W. Jordan. Jr. 
BlJwaro E Kollgren 
Hernia Hill Kay 
PiitOr Q Keans 
Jonn W. Keker 
Ma v r L. Kennedy 
Raoul Kenriay 
Martin Kroeao 
0*08 Landis 
Mark l0v»0 
Michaai Load 
Gera 0 P Lopez 
Jumoa R Madmort 
Raymond C Ma'ihaii 
aneLn i. MaranaM 
V i f  Maypoa 
John MoDannell. Jr.
Kurt W. Melohtor
Peter Mtzey 
Dianr# M MiUner 
3 ale Minaml 
P chard 8. Morrta 
«ames B. Nebel 
Ann Moai 
Piter Nuttbaum 
Ft.chard W. Odjeri 
Bam K  Parker 
Jessica Pari 
Laura Rafety 
Drjoi: a fiteraer Ramiy 
Rnriqul Ramirez 
Cnerias 6 RohfrdW 
vOaaph W Rogers 
Otar Roman 
Mienael Rugen 
ArtWiid Selflzsr-Hobson 
Abano Saldamando 
Mar a Bug ado 
Mark 1, BcNokmin 
Amttal Sen warn 
"home* F fimegal, Jr, 
VaroaliV 9ochynsky 
Deane Solomon 
rtooOrt Thompson
MtCrtMi Tray nor 
PWiy Waooer 
i:rarow I. WOfrtOT 
urea Wiuamt 
/vorron W. Wl'.ldfi 
<#ith W ngate 
rtans d. wmaton 
Doug vojng 
joei Zeldin 
Barnard Zimmerman

Emeritus Mampera 
Richard C, 3 nkelaciol 
Roden M. Pablan 
Jaaaa Fa Id man 
Cnuda H.HdQBn 
Horry W. Howard 
Wiliam c. McKee
Robert D. Ravel 
toward W. Roan’on 
-onn A. Sutro

San Francisco
Lawyers’ Committee 

For Urban Affairs___
301 MISSION STREET. SUITE; 400 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA £4105 
(415) 543-9441 FAX: (415)5400295

PAX TRANSMITTAL COVER SHI!

Stair
Ev» Jsffween Patvion. giseutlv* Director 
Mereia Hoaan, Aaslsum Diraetor 
Mlctieel Harrla, Start Attorney 
Diane T. CWn, Sun Atttmey 
Theodore Helen Weng, Fellow 
Im rn g itn t ana Refugee Rlghta P fye c t 
Robed Rubin, Managing Attorney 
Ignatius Beu Start Attorney 
Sate T, Campos, Staff Attorney 
David Rotlck, legal Aaaiatant

Support Start
Joe Berber. Finance Manager 
Antonio Guevara, Receptionist 
jasmine Guillory, Office C!er» 

ea Turlye King. Office Clerk
•• Annette Klngiow, Legal Secretary

Cheryl Stewart, Senior Secretary

DATE: October 22, 1992 NUMBER OF VAOES: 9 
(INCLUDING COVER)

TO: Rick Seymour
Joe Oellera 
Marina Shea

(202) 842-3211
(203) 8.12-2171 
(212) 226-7592

PROM: Eva Paterson
r e : Attached Material

X M f  d frfik & Jt)-.

I W —  (/rpa/chrtA.

t r i e .

24 A n  affiliate o f L aw ye rs ’ Com m ittee for Civil Righti U n d e r  Law



No. S'l-15113

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FONTAINE DAVIS, et al.,
Plaint if fs-Appellees, 

v.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et. al., 

Defendantu-Appellanta,

U.S.D.C. NO, C84-01100 MHP 
Northern District of Californizt (San Francisco)

APPEAL OF ORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETITION FOR REHEARING

EVA JEFFERSON PATERSON 
SAN FRANCISCO LAWYERS*

COMMITTEE FOR URBAN AFFAIRS 
301 Mission Street, Suite 400 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Telephone: (415) 543-9444
MARIA BLANCO 
EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES 
1663 Mission St., Suite 550 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
(415) 621-0(572

RICHARD M. PEARL 
LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD M. PEARL 
685 Market Street, Suite 690 
San Franciuco, CA 94105 
(415) 243-9912

Attorneys for Plaintiffs- 
Appellees
(Counsel continued on next page)



ILg.A, (DAVIS) y f CITY AND CWWlL.fiE-fi&H..E&MigISCO No. C-84-7089 MHP, No. C-84-1100 MHP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees continued:
WILLIAM C. McNEILL, III 
EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 
1663 Mission Street, Suite 400 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Telephone: (415) 864-8848
DENISE HULETT 
MALDEF
182 2nd Street, 2nd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94105 
Telephone: (415) 543-5598
SHAUNA I. MARSHALL 
Attorney at Law 
800 Shrader Street 
San Francisco, CA 94117
MARI MAYEDA
Saper,stein, Mayeda, Larkin &

Goldstein
1300 Clay Street,, 11th Floor 
Oakland, CA 94612



TABLE OV CONTENT!)

TABLE OP AUTHORITIES . . .
* 1 1 * < ' • * *  »

INTRODUCTION . , .

J- HATORE£i|1:p?[Tg^I.lIg?TOft M E  CONTINGENTFACTOR IN r w I?J™=S»o' ATTORNEYS'COMPENSATION MAY BE A FACTOR IN TirlE LODESTAR DETERMINATION........
CONCLUSION . .



■ Ill u  l T r \  v i v r\ i v i v v v ̂  i v i f V fa I T I V 1*1 f W  I I U H W  V  V  1*11*1 I I l 'i. I fc fa fa V N V L

TABLE 07 AUTHORITIES
CASED

Blum V .  Stenaon.
465 U.S. 886 (1S'84)...........................................  2
CitV of Burlington v. Deque,
112 8. Ct. 2638 (1992) .............................. .. l f 2
Hens lev v. EcVer-h*^.
461 U.S. 424 (1683) ......................................... 3
Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild. Inc..
526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975) ................................  3
£fi,nnfl»ylyania v, Delaware Valiev eifclgnn«' Council.
483 U.S. 711 (1986) ................. "......................  2

ii



ocini d t • Aerox l e i e c o p i e r  / uz i * i^ ^ o w  .a r  i .Awrtna l-jmi vi m, i i  u s  i w z iff B

INTRODUCTION
Appellees' file this Petition for Reheering to siddress one 

very limited issue which we submit was; overlooked or 
misinterpreted in this Court's Opinion,. Specifically, appellees 
ask this Court to modify its Opinion regarding the effect that 
the: contingent nature of plaintiffs' attorneys' compensation 
might have in determining the lodestar fee. Wo submit that in
&lty ,Qf Burlington v.«.Dague, 112 s.ct. 2638 (1 9 9:2), the court
expressly recognized that contingency might well be a. factor in 
determining the lodestar fee. 112 s.ct. at 2641., Accordingly, 
appellees request that the Court revise its Opinion and its
disposition to reflect a ruling consistent with Hague on this 
issue.

I. UNDEJi CITY OP BURLINGTON v. ciqgff,. t ub CONTINGENT
NATURE OF PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' COMPENSATION MAY BE A 
FACTOR IN THE LODESTAR DETERMINATION

The only portion of this Court's Opinion that appellees seek
to have modified concerns the issue of whether the contingent
nature of plaintiffs' attorneys' compensation may be considered
as a factor in the determination of the lodestar. The relevant
language from this Court's opinion is found at p. 12002*

"The district court also mentioned contingency as a 
consideration in listing the Johftgjm-Kerr factors which 
it thought relevant to establishing appropriate billing 
rates. 748 F.Sqpp. at 1427. Whilo the Dacue Court did 
not speak directly to this point, ve believe that its 
rejection of contingsmcy as a basis; for multiplying a 
lodeetai fee similarly dictates that contingency not be 
a factor in the setting of billing rates. Deque 
represents an outright rejection o f contingency as a 
factor relevant to the establ.Lshmer.t of a reasonable 
fee; it would seem to be immaterial whether the 
consideration of contingency occurs in deciding to 
apply a multiplier to the lodestar on initially

1



calculating the lodestar."1
This unqualified rejection of contingency as a factor in 

determining the lodestar, however, appears to conflict with 
Supreme Court precedent. In City of Burlington v. Dacqe,. the 
Court recognized contingency as a factor that nay be considered 
in determining either the number of houirs reasonably expended or 
the reasonable hourly rates for attorneys’ seivices:

We note at the outset that an enhancement for 
contingency would likely duplicate jn substantial part 
factors already subsumed in the lodestar. The risk of 
loes in a particular case (and, therefore, the 
attorney's contingent risk) is the product of two 
factors: (1) the legal and factual merits of the
claim, and (2) the difficulty of estab.Lishincf those 
merits. The second, factor, however, is ordinarily 
reflected in the lodestar —  either in the higher 
number of hours expended to overcome the difficulty, or 
in the higher hourly rate of the attorneys skilled and 
experienced enough to do so.” 112 s.ct.'at 2641, 
citing Blum y, StenffOn, 465 U.£l, 886, 898*899 (1984).

Similarly, in EsnpsYlVapjfl 'lk-B£lflMJre Valley citizen*' 
CflUZlfill, 483 U.S. 711, 726-727 (1986) ("Delaware Valley 3;”) f the 
plurality opinion also recognizes that the factors underlying
contingent risk ere considered by the court in determining the 
lodestar figures,,

Appellees submit that under the Court's reasoning in Daaue 
and Xtelayars Va]]$y j, the fact that a case waii taken on a 
contingent basis may well be a fftetor that wou:.d justify "the 
higher number of hours expended to overcome the difficulty of the

.,jhe Opinion then goes on to note that although the district
contin9ency as a factor in Jetting hourly rates it 

t0 havf b?en a .minor one that did not affect the result ' (ifeid*)/ a conclusion with which appellees strongly agree. However
fiaure'would^hji dt triCt C?Urt t5»f contingency ^  ^  ™  b*en arrived st wLttout consideration

2



f TT W

particular case" or “the higher hourly rate of the attorneys 
skilled and experienced enough" to establish a difficult case on 
the merits. Indeed, this appears to be what the district court 
had in mind in the instant case when it referred, to the 
contingency faictor in setting plaintiffs' hourly rates.

In any event, a blanket preclusion of contingency as a 
factor in setting the lodestar would appear to be unwarranted, so 
long as it is clear that it does not result in a. prohibited 
"double-counting." The ultimate goal is to determine a 
"reasonable " fee. Henslev v. Eckerhart. 451 U.S. 424 (1983). 
Contingency always has been part of the det *rniiriation of a 
"reasonable fee" under the caselaw (sea, , Kerr v. Screen 
Extras Guild. Inc.. 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)], cert, dsn., 
425 U.S. 951 (1976) and under professional standards (see, e.g., 
California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rile 4-200(B)(9)) .

This Court's Opinion, however, precludes any such analysis. 
Appellees ask that it be modified accordingly.

CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, appellees respectfully 

request that this Court's Opinion be modified as set forth above.

3



♦

PROOF OF SERVICE
avsr *hQ *' undersigned, am a citizen cf the United States,

g Sf i  yearS/ ®mPloyBd in the City and County of SaA Francisco, and not a party to the within action. My business
2aU?o?nia,5 94!o5Market SUite <59°' San Francisco'

*

On the date appearing below, I served i:he within 
PETITION FOR REHEARING

parties in said action by placing a true copy thereof in a
San^rancTfi?'3̂ ? 03^ 9! prePaid'' ^  the United States Mail at *an Francisco, addressed as follows:

Louise H. Rerine, City Attorney 
George A. Riley
Christina Hall, Deputy City Attorneys 
Karen B. Konigsberg, Staff Attorney City Hall, Room 205 
San Franciisco, CA 94102-4682

correct f* Under panalty of Per:|UrV that the doretjoing is true and

Executed California. on October 20, 1992 at San Francisco,

TAICLET

4