S.D. California cuts consumer protection fee award 42.5%, including for block billing
Eoll v. General Motors LLC et al, No. 3:25-cv-02310. District Court, S.D. California, Judge Hayes. Decided . Read the opinion
- Requested
- $26,290.80
- Awarded
- $15,109
- Cut
- 42.5%$11,181.80
Consumer protection
What happened
The fee applicant sought $26,290.80 in attorney fees for 30.8 hours in a consumer protection case. Judge Hayes awarded $15,109, a reduction of $11,181.80 or 42.5%. The court lowered the hourly rates for Ms. Plata and for associates Vivian Chen and Gary Balyezyan to reflect their experience. It also reduced a subset of flat rate entries by 30% because they lumped distinct tasks, lacked information to assess reasonableness, billed clerical work, and included excessive hours.
What the court said
the "flat rate" entries lump together so many distinct tasks that "the Court has no way to disaggregate the activities to determine whether the time billed for any particular task was reasonable."
Because the challenged entries bill for some non-compensable work, contain insufficient information to assess reasonableness, and charge for an excessive number of overall hours, the Court reduces the "flat rate" award by 30%.
The second challenged entry also bills attorney time for "calendaring deadlines associated with the pre-litigation stage." ... This constitutes clerical work, which is not recoverable as part of an attorneys' fee award.
The court also reduced the award for: hourly rate reduced, hourly rate reduced, excessive hours.
Why it matters
The ruling shows that courts will cut a subset of entries, not just the overall total, when time records combine tasks and lack detail. It also confirms that clerical tasks billed as attorney time are not recoverable and that rate reductions can compound a percentage cut to entries.
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
Eoll v. General Motors LLC, No. 3:25-cv-02310 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2026) See hourly rates the S.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.
More rulings like this
- N.D. Texas cuts employment fee award 10% over block billing Huang v. University of Texas Arlington · Oct 16, 2026
- D. Massachusetts cuts commercial fee award over clerical work Nichole Sliney Realty Team, Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company · Oct 16, 2026
- N.D. New York cuts intellectual property fee award, including for block billing Automotive Lift Institute, Inc. v. Dami Co., LLC · Oct 15, 2026