The following excerpt is from Cotton v. City of Eureka, 889 F.Supp.2d 1154 (E.D. Cal. 2012):
The fee applicant has the burden of producing satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its attorneys, that the requested rates are appropriate. Once the fee applicant has met its burden, the opposing party has a burden of rebuttal that requires submission of evidence to the district court challenging the accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged or the facts asserted by the prevailing party in its submitted affidavits. Gates, 987 F.2d at 1397. A district court also may consider its own expert knowledge and experience in setting an hourly rate
[889 F.Supp.2d 1167]
for the lodestar calculation. Ingram v. Oroudjian, 647 F.3d 925, 928 (9th Cir.2011).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.