Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)

Citation: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Parent Document: Heriberto Rodriguez v. County of Los Angeles, 891 F.3d 776 (2018)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2018-05-30
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4502306/heriberto-rodriguez-v-county-of... ↗

Full Text

1,388 chars

1478–79 (9th Cir. 1995). In accordance with state law, the
district court based its decision on the substantial financial
risk that appellees’ counsel assumed in investing $3.4 million
of attorney time in a contingency case; the difficulty of
representing prisoners with the Men’s Central Jail’s highest
security classifications, in an excessive force action against
high-ranking jail officials, all the while facing “aggressive
opposition” from appellants; and the opportunity costs the
years-long litigation in this case required. The court
expressly noted that it had considered the burden to
California’s taxpayers that the fee award would represent, and
found that the award was justified given the factors described
above and the importance of civil rights suits in protecting the
public against abuses at the hands of “large or politically
powerful defendants.” Horsford v. Bd. of Trustees of
California State Univ., 132 Cal. App. 4th 359, 399–401
(2005); see Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 49 (1977) (“The
experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of
professional services rendered in his court, and while his
judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be
disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is
clearly wrong.” (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)). We cannot fault the trial judge’s reasoning or
results here. Conclusion

Other Sections in This Document (185)

Full Text