S.D. Florida cuts intellectual property fee award 30%, including for vague entries

What happened

Duane Morris, counsel for Tecnoglass, LLC, sought $347,609.50 in attorney fees. Judge K. Michael Moore awarded $243,326.65, a reduction of $104,282.85, or 30%. The court applied a single 30% across-the-board cut to the total fee request. The reasons included vague billing entries, block billing, duplicative staffing with frequent multi-timekeeper conferences, clerical tasks billed as legal work, and time for client calls and emails without sufficient detail.

What the court said

Considering the non-compensable billing entries discussed above, I find that an across-the-board reduction of 30 percent to the total fee award sought by Plaintiff is reasonable.

Many of Ms. Castillo's billing entries constitute impermissible block billing, with individual entries covering the gamut from exchanging emails, phone calls, performing research, reading the Court's rules, preparing documents and binders

These are three of many examples where Plaintiff has billed for non-compensable clerical tasks.

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

Why it matters

The ruling shows that a court may apply one across-the-board percentage cut to the whole fee request when time records contain several problems, rather than adjusting each entry. It also confirms that the fee applicant bears the burden of showing the time was reasonably expended, and that entries lacking detail may not be compensated.

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 S.D. Florida approves and attorney fee motions in Florida 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.