E.D. California cuts commercial fee award 21.4% over reconstructed time

What happened

Hemar, Rousso & Heald, LLP sought $4,550 in fees under a contract fee clause for 14 hours of work in BMO Bank N.A. v. Singh. The court awarded $3,575, a reduction of $975, and 11 hours. The court cut 3 hours because the time was reconstructed and no evidence supported the estimate, and the court declined to speculate about time related to the motion.

What the court said

However, there is no evidence to support this estimate; thus, as previously explained by the Court, "[t]he Court declines to speculate as to time related to this motion"

Why it matters

The ruling shows that a fee applicant must support estimated or reconstructed time with evidence. When the record does not back up an estimate, the court may decline to speculate and reduce the hours and the award accordingly.

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.