E.D. California cuts employment fee award 45.1%, including for vague entries

What happened

The plaintiff sought $630,387 in attorney fees. The court awarded $346,192.50, a reduction of $284,194.50 or 45.1%. The court reduced hours for work on unrelated claims, excessive billing, and limited success. It also cited recordkeeping problems: vague entries such as case file, mail, and NC; no billing records for some attorney and paralegal time; and reconstructed entries for a period when the docket showed no activity.

What the court said

some of those entries include vague descriptions, such as "case file," "mail," and "NC"—which understandably cast further doubt on the reliability of plaintiff's counsel's billing records.

there are no billing records at all to substantiate the time purportedly spent by attorney Nakama and paralegal O'Keefe during this time period

the docket reflects no activity from plaintiff in this action for nearly three years following the Ninth Circuit's decision, and yet somehow plaintiff's counsel's billing records include five pages worth of entries for attorney Burton during that period of dormancy.

The court also reduced the award for: hourly rate reduced, unrelated claims, excessive hours, unrelated claims, excessive hours, unrelated claims, limited success, limited success.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that courts examine billing records for specificity and contemporaneous support. Vague descriptions and missing or reconstructed entries can undermine the reliability of a fee application and contribute to reductions, even when other grounds for reduction are also present.

How to keep this out of your fee petition

• Name the task, the document or person involved, and the purpose.
• Avoid stock phrases that could describe any day in any matter.
• Keep privileged detail general, but specific enough to show the work.

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.