E.D. California cuts fee award 49.4%, including for block billing

What happened

Husch Blackwell LLP sought $31,051.35 in fees for 58.7 hours on behalf of Dot Foods. The court awarded $15,709.05, a reduction of $15,342.30 or 49.4%. It cited a block billing summary with no dates and no differentiation among three timekeepers, vague entries, duplicative staffing by a partner, senior associate, and senior paralegal on the same tasks, 4.2 hours of clerical work, fees for subpoenaing a nonparty, and fees for a separate motion to compel brief where the Local Rules required a Joint Statement.

What the court said

Defendant submitted a block billing summary of its claimed fees without any dates and without any differentiation between the three individuals for whom it seeks fees.

Defendant submitted a block billing summary of its claimed fees without any dates and without any differentiation between the three individuals for whom it seeks fees.

Defendant is not entitled to recover its total fees sought, including any fees for its senior paralegal, because the fees sought are for the same work for all three individuals.

The court also reduced the award for: duplicative staffing, unrelated claims, other.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that a fee summary lacking dates and timekeeper detail can draw reductions on its own, and that courts will also trim entries for duplicative staffing, clerical tasks, and work outside the required filing format.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Record one task per entry, each with its own time.
• Write the entry when the work happens, not at the end of the week.
• If a task really is one unit of work, say what it was and what it produced.

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.