S.D. Indiana cuts wage and hour fee award 22.9%, including for clerical work | LegalTime AI

S.D. Indiana cuts wage and hour fee award 22.9%, including for clerical work

DUAN v. M X PAN INCORPORATED d/b/a FORMOSA SEAFOOD BUFFET et al, No. 1:22-cv-02333. District Court, S.D. Indiana, Judge Kellie M. Barr. Decided . Read the opinion

Requested
$13,229.50
Awarded
$10,200
Cut
22.9%$3,029.50

Wage and hour · Sanctions · Fee applicant's counsel: Troy Law, PPLC

What happened

The plaintiff, represented by Troy Law, PPLC, sought $13,229.5 in sanctions fees for 57.9 hours. The court awarded $10,200, a reduction of $3,029.5 or 22.9%. It cut 1.58 hours for time on unrelated claims, 0.92 hours for printing, setting up a laptop, and preparing mail and email, 2.5 hours for opposing a motion to appoint counsel, 5.17 hours for an unnecessary motion the plaintiff withdrew, and 1.0 hour for vague research entries.

What the court said

Clerical work billed as legal work
Ms. Troy spent 0.92 hours printing filings, setting up her laptop, and preparing mail and emailing the Defendants. The Court does not find this time to be reasonable.
Vague entries
It is not clear how this information was used or how such research was a result of Ms. Dong's failure to abide by court orders. As such, the amount of time sought by Plaintiff is REDUCED by 1.00 hour.

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

Why it matters

The ruling shows that courts will separate clerical tasks from legal work and require entries tying time to the sanctioned conduct. Vague research entries and time on unrelated or withdrawn motions are cut even in a sanctions fee request, so the records must connect each task to the basis for the award.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

  • Leave purely clerical work off the fee petition.
  • Describe paralegal tasks so the substantive work is clear.
  • Split mixed entries into their substantive and clerical parts.

Cite this ruling

DUAN v. M X PAN INCORPORATED d/b/a FORMOSA SEAFOOD BUFFET, No. 1:22-cv-02333 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 8, 2025)

See hourly rates the S.D. Indiana approves and attorney fee motions in Indiana 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.

More rulings like this

All rulings in the Fee Cut Tracker