Huntington Branch v. Town of Huntington

3 Citing cases

  1. Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v. Huntington

    961 F.2d 1048 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 19 times
    Holding generally that "a court may not enhance a fee award any more than necessary to bring the fee within the range that would attract competent counsel"

    The allowance for the attorneys' two associates and an NAACP attorney was increased from a lodestar rate of $135 per hour to approximately $170 per hour. The district court's MEMORANDUM AND ORDER is reported at 749 F.Supp. 62 (E.D.N.Y. 1990), modified, 762 F.Supp. 528 (E.D.N.Y. 1991), and familiarity with it is assumed. The district court arrived at the lodestar figures by looking to the rates that prevailed in the pertinent field and community in 1990.

  2. Cmty. House, Inc. v. City of Boise

    Case No. 1:05-cv-00283-CWD (D. Idaho Mar. 25, 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Finding an hourly rate of $400 reasonable for Fair Housing Act litigation in Boise

    But fees for experts' services are not allowed under § 1988, nor would they be permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 or the FHA absent express authority explicitly allowing expert services fees as part of "costs." West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83 (1991); Huntington Branch NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 762 F.Supp. 528, 530 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (disallowing expert witness fees claimed under the FHA pursuant to Casey, and permitting only the statutory $40 witness fee). Costs of $40 will be allowed in this category.

  3. Cabrera v. Fischler

    814 F. Supp. 269 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)   Cited 37 times
    Adopting this method from National Football League, 887 F.2d at 414

    In Huntington Branch NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 749 F. Supp. 62 (E.D.N.Y. 1990), a case similar to the instant matter, counsel sought to recover for 2359.75 hours of work performed over a period of nine years, including a trial, various motions, both pre- and post-trial, and the entry of judgment. ( See also other proceedings at 961 F.2d 1048 [2d Cir. 1992]; 844 F.2d 926 [2d Cir. 1988]; 689 F.2d 391 [2d Cir. 1982]; 762 F. Supp. 528 [E.D.N.Y. 1991]; 749 F. Supp. 62 [E.D.N.Y. 1990]; 668 F. Supp. 762 [E.D.N.Y. 1987]; 530 F. Supp. 838 [E.D.N.Y. 1981].) Giving plaintiffs' counsel every benefit of the doubt, the Court cannot view the expenditure of 4,800 attorney-hours and another 1,500 paralegal-hours as necessary or reasonable.