You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lee v. Abb Daimler-Benz Transportation, Inc. ("Adtranz")

Citation: 17 F. App'x 668Docket: No. 00-17139; D.C. No. CV-98-02615-CAL

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; August 28, 2001; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Peter Lee appeals the district court's decision to grant attorneys' fees to ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation, Inc. (Adtranz) following a summary judgment in favor of Adtranz. The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the attorneys’ fee award for abuse of discretion. The court affirms the district court's decision, finding that the award of attorneys’ fees was justified because Lee's discrimination claim was deemed "unreasonable, frivolous, meritless or vexatious." Additionally, the district court reasonably determined the fee amount by adjusting the lodestar due to ambiguities in fee attribution and considering Lee's financial hardship. The ruling is affirmed, and it is noted that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Legal Issues Addressed

Adjustment of Lodestar in Determining Attorneys' Fees

Application: The district court adjusted the lodestar amount for attorneys' fees due to ambiguities in fee attribution and considered the appellant's financial hardship.

Reasoning: Additionally, the district court reasonably determined the fee amount by adjusting the lodestar due to ambiguities in fee attribution and considering Lee's financial hardship.

Jurisdiction of Appellate Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Application: The appellate court has jurisdiction to review the district court's decision to grant attorneys' fees based on this statute.

Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reviews the attorneys’ fee award for abuse of discretion.

Non-Publication and Citation of Judicial Dispositions

Application: The court notes that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as allowed by specific circuit rules.

Reasoning: The ruling is affirmed, and it is noted that this disposition is not suitable for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as permitted by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Standard of Review for Attorneys' Fee Awards

Application: The appellate court reviews the district court's award of attorneys' fees for abuse of discretion, affirming the decision when the claim is deemed unreasonable.

Reasoning: The court affirms the district court's decision, finding that the award of attorneys’ fees was justified because Lee's discrimination claim was deemed 'unreasonable, frivolous, meritless or vexatious.'