Opinion
Case No. 99-32841-B7, Adv. No. 06-90289-B7.
November 20, 2006
ORDER ON WITTMAN'S MOTION FOR FEES
This matter came on regularly for hearing on the motion of Ms. Wittman for an award of attorney's fees and costs against plaintiff Harris. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and General Order No. 312-D of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
Harris does not contest that Ms. Wittman is entitled to recover fees and costs pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Nor does he contest the reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by Ms. Wittman's attorneys. However, he contends that the attorneys expended an unreasonable number of hours, and that fees sought for work on the pending appeal are premature. The Court agrees with the latter objection for while Ms. Wittman may ultimately be entitled to fees on appeal, such a request is not presently ripe. The Court calculates that $4,920.00 of the fees sought are allocable to the appeal. In addition, $190 as a cost of admission to the Ninth Circuit is disallowed as a cost chargeable to plaintiff.
Harris' main area of focus is in the seeming duplication in both the motion to dismiss and to strike, and also as between counsel for Ms. Wittman and counsel for the other defendants. The Court has reviewed, paragraph by paragraph, the two motions filed by Ms. Wittman and agrees that much of the body of both are virtually identical. However, when the billing records were compared, the Court did not find evidence of duplicate billing for drafting of the pleadings. Moreover, much of the work on the pleadings was done by law clerks and paralegals, which is a sound exercise of billing discretion by the firm. In addition, the Court found that of the work billed much was for efforts other than the two motions.
The Court also recognizes that Ms. Wittman's attorneys blazed the trial, and earned joinders in their motions. While a significant amount of time and effort was invested in work on this case, the Court finds no duplication, and no theory on which to reduce the fees sought other than as already indicated.
Accordingly, fees and costs are allowed as follows:
Fees Costs Sparber Rudolph Annen $2,601.00 $542.70 Wingert Grebing Brubaker $54,562.50 $4,029.65 Goodwin Without prejudice to the latter to apply upon appropriate order for fees and costs (not including admission) incurred upon appeal once the appeal is concluded. Applicant should try to ensure that any final order of the final appellate court addresses the issue of what court will have jurisdiction to entertain an application for fees and costs on appeal.Harris has requested in his opposition that the Court stay any award of fees pending appeal. The Court has previously advised counsel that a separately noticed motion for stay is required before such a request will be considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.