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 in BMO Bank N.A. v. Singh. The court awarded $3,575, a reduction of $975, or 21.4%. The court excluded 3 hours of reconstructed time, finding no evidence to support the estimate and declining to speculate about time related to the motion. The figures do not include costs.

What the court said

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 time with evidence. Where the record offers no basis for a reconstructed figure, the court will not fill the gap by guessing, and the unsupported hours are removed from the award.

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.