E.D. California cuts fee award over vague entries

What happened

In Maxwell v. Pacione et al, the fee applicant sought fees in connection with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike and the instant motion. The court deducted 6.8 hours because the entries were too vague to assess whether the work furthered either motion. It also declined to include 3.0 hours requested to prepare a potential reply brief. The court did not state total fees requested or awarded.

What the court said

Because these entries are too vague to properly assess whether the work therein was in furtherance of either the anti-SLAPP motion to strike or the instant motion, the Court deducts these hours from the total listed in the billing records.

The court also reduced the award for: fees on fees.

Why it matters

The ruling shows that courts will reduce fee awards when time entries lack enough detail to tie the work to the motion at issue, and will exclude time for work not shown to have been performed.

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.