Davis v. San Francisco City and County Petition for Rehearing
Public Court Documents
October 20, 1991

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Davis v. San Francisco City and County Petition for Rehearing, 1991. 8fea9e46-af9a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/274cb240-5f1a-4637-b253-aec3b9e71b75/davis-v-san-francisco-city-and-county-petition-for-rehearing. Accessed July 09, 2025.
Copied!
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 <y ,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