E.D. California cuts commercial fee award 31% over reconstructed time

What happened

The fee applicant sought $3,672.50 for 11.3 hours under a contract fee clause in BMO Bank N.A. v. Lala Trucking Inc, et al. The court awarded $2,535 for 7.8 hours, a reduction of $1,137.50 or 31%. The court excluded 3.5 hours that Mr. Ito had estimated for the pending motion, finding no evidence to support the estimate. The figures do not include costs.

What the court said

Although Mr. Ito anticipated 3.5 additional hours related to the pending motion (id. at 3, ¶ 7), there is no evidence to support this estimate.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that a fee petition must rest on contemporaneous records. An estimate of anticipated hours, even from the attorney who expected to do the work, will not support an award when no evidence backs it up.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Track time from the first day, even in matters you expect to be contingent or fee-shifting.
• If you must reconstruct time, say so and explain the sources.
• Do not round or estimate to fill gaps.

Cite this ruling

See hourly rates the E.D. California approves and attorney fee motions in California federal courts.

Figures and quotes are taken from the opinion and checked against its text. Spot an error? Email team@legaltime.ai with the case name and we will correct it. Summaries of public court opinions. Not legal advice.