Skip to main content

Search

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 9.2.22 Challenges to Consent Decrees

In Martin v. Wilks, the Supreme Court held that a consent decree adjudicated only the rights of the parties to the decree.4455 The Court, therefore, allowed those persons who were adversely affected by the operation of the decree to challenge actions taken pursuant to the decree even though they failed to intervene in the litigation from which the decree arose.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 9.4.7 Reasonable Number of Hours

What constitutes “hours reasonably expended” is the most frequently debated question in fee litigation. The court must determine which attorney activities are compensable and whether the time expended on those activities was reasonable. Advocates can expect resistance from opposing counsel here, based on arguments that the claimed hours are excessive due to purported “overlawyering” of the case, and a great deal of case law exists interpreting these issues.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 9.4.8 Documentation Requirements

As a threshold matter, courts and opposing counsel examine whether the hours are well documented. As the Court in Hensley stated, “the fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.”4560 The quality of this documentation will be critical to achieving reasonable compensation.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 9.4.9 Overall Billing Judgment Decisions

Hensley states that “[w]here a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation . . . .”4570 However, attorneys seeking court-awarded fees are expected to exercise voluntary “billing judgment,” excluding from a fee request “hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary….”4571

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 9.4.13 Convincing the Court of the Reasonableness of the Hours Claimed

The most important part of a major fee motion usually is the section that explains why the number of hours claimed, which may seem high at first glance, is actually reasonable. Attorneys need to keep in mind that in most cases the vast majority of the work they do takes place out of court. They need to explain that work, most often through a detailed declaration from the plaintiffs’ lead attorney on the case, summarized in the opening brief.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 9.4.14 Reasonable Hourly Rates

In Blum v. Stenson, the Supreme Court held that § 1988 fees awarded to legal aid programs that do not charge their clients fees should be calculated at rates comparable to those charged by private attorneys in the community with comparable experience.4607 The Court rejected as inconsistent with the legislative history of § 1988 the argument that fees should be limited to the internal costs of the relatively low salaries paid by legal aid programs.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.0 Introduction

This Chapter addresses three topics. First, we discuss the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and review the principal legislative provisions by which Congress has vested federal courts with jurisdiction. Second, we review the abstention doctrines, which are limitations on the exercise of that jurisdiction. Third, we cover the jurisdiction of state courts over federal claims.

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.3.3 Section 1331

Since Congress conferred general federal question jurisdiction in 1875154, the Court has consistently held that the statutory grant is not as broad as the Constitution would allow.155 The primary test that has been developed for determining whether a civil action arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States for purposes of § 1331 requires: (1) a substantial federal element; and (2) such element being part of the plaintiff’s “well-pleaded complaint.”

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.3.5 The Well-Pleaded Complaint

Not only must the action “arise under” the Constitution or federal law, but the federal question must also appear on the face of a “well-pleaded complaint.”178 In practice, this means that plaintiffs may not invoke federal jurisdiction by raising contrived federal issues in the complaint 179 or anticipated federal defenses.180 “Nor can federal jurisdiction rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.”181

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.4.3 Declaratory Judgment Act

The Declaratory Judgment Act is not, strictly speaking, a jurisdictional statute.209 Under the Act, federal courts have the power in cases of “actual controversy” to “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.210 In suits against federal or state agencies or officials for review of adverse agency action, plaintiffs often seek judgments declaring the action illegal as well as (occasionally in

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.5.2 Mandamus Jurisdiction

Section 1361 of Title 28 confers on the district courts “jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel” a federal officer, employee, or agency “to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.”217 The mandamus jurisdiction conferred by this provision is available only if the plaintiff has a clear right to relief, the duty breached is “a clear nondiscretionary duty,” and no other remedy is available.218 The significance of this statute as a separate source of federal jurisdiction has fad

Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 2.5.3 Administrative Procedure Act

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) creates a cause of action against agencies of the federal government acting under federal law.220 The APA authorizes judicial review, establishes the form and venue of judicial review proceedings, states what agency actions are reviewable, and describes the scope of review of such actions.221 The Act eliminates the defense of sovereign immunity in cases seeking relief other than money damages and claiming that a federal agency, officer, or employee acted or