the court stated that no reasonable person would pay a lawyer one hundred and forty one thousand three hundred and forty seven dollars or even seventy three thousand and thirteen dollars to win five thousand five hundred and seventy five dollars that the complete lack of success and total failure means that attorneys councillors should get virtually nothing in attorney fees and in every sense this was an attorney driven litigation how do you think the client must feel to have gotten such a de minimus settlement and then the had to have their attorneys apply for attorney fees in over one hundred and forty one thousand dollars the award of sufficiently consider the amount of plaintiff's recovery compared to the amount sought initially the magistrate judge had after having found a lodestar amount or come to a conclusion on the load start then deducted the fees by fifty dollars i'm sorry but thirty percent the district court judge it was then objections were filed and the district court judge then reduced it by fifty percent i'm here today to request that the court this honorable court overturn the district court's decision and and give only ninety percent of the total amount of attorney fees that have been to talk determined by the lodestar tomorrow so counsel with before we reach the issue of whether the district court properly reduce the load star there's a and i think an underlying issue which is calculation of the lodestar amount and the recent roberts decision would suggest that we should vacate the manner in which the district court calculated the reasonable hourly rate because it doesn't appear that the just record consider the declarations that were submitted how do you distinguish roberts and if you do how do you do  and he submitted i believe similar declarations because i remember the the common the roberts opinion about the inexplicable submission of the plumber's affidavit but there were handful of affidavits from attorneys with respect to the reasonable hourly so i don't know that you can distinguish the case based on the experience of the counsel since they believe it was the same counts mark your honor i apologize so i think that in this case in calculating the lodestar amount and please forgive me if i i don't have a strong command of the case that you're referring to your honor but i would like to distinguish it in this sense and i think it's me hope the court to better understand with regards to the lodestar amount there were a couple of items that for example the paralegal services that the court awarded that you know pursuant to local rules the council is required to set forth in a declaration adequately stating the hourly rate that individual in this case and i think it is in this case they didn't even set ringback any type of paralegal they didn't identify that person they didn't you know put their qualifications with regard to the two attorneys you know there's there's various issues with regards to the calculation of the lodestar amount and while i understand that the court is most concerned with the hourly rate originally the magistrate judge i believe had awarded it to be two hundred dollars and and then up that amount by you know fifteen dollars or so for each council and and based on that we don't believe that they have the necessary experience or the qualifications mr holcombe is primarily a dui attorney they've barely even handled these types of cases  you can i think i don't know why this is very with judge beatty and or i'm not going to make an advance judgment on the roberts case because i think the court here did look at the affidavit where or kind of in this odd situation between the two counsel where  of course you'd like it to be as low as possible and then you'd like it to be cut in addition to get down to a low number correct correct and you know we need to understand st going back to judge brady's question your position on the lodestar amount what is your position on whether the core to into account the appropriate factors here i do believe that the chords and take into account program factors in the reason being is because in this case and if you go through the history of this case the complaint originally started with their senior player and i believe that let me just summarize this in a better manner basically what had happened was the court had so the reason my apologies sure i know no problem it's just that i'm good i know when you're in the case that a lot of the details are very important they will be ultimately but there is this threshold question on the amount that we sure your honor thank you for and the opportunity to clarify i would just like to say that the district court awarded fees and costs for work done by the plaintiff's attorneys on behalf of former employees who were not plaintiffs in this case or were forced to litigate their claims  included all of these individuals as opposed to and they claim that they were there and that their time should all be credited to arsenio palaeo and brandon boyle does that answer the court's question or can i further clarify i don't  moving on your argument thank you your honor aside from my concerns with the calculation of the lodestar amount and i do believe that the district court did in fact err by increasing the amount i would like to note that the district i believe that the magistrate was more accurate in his decision in the hourly rate and i do have concerns with the actual amount of time actually spent i think that from the records it's impossible to determine how much bring different claims are should they should obtain attorney fees for everybody when the actual settlement was only for arsenio player who received five thousand dollars and and then brandon bordellos who received the total so they had stated that in a bunch of different motions and various different things in every sense as i stated before this was an attorney driven litigation and in awarding fees the district court failed to suffici consider the amount of thing just recovery compared to the amounts side and that was my nd argument as i stated before the dish a quarter originally i'm sorry the magistrate judge originally reduced it by thirty per se the dish or courage judge then reduced the entire amount by fifty percent we believe it should be reduced even further to ninety percent in macau and st the city of fine town of this th circuit court of appeals held that it would be an abuse of discretion to grant plaintiff's attorneys a percentage of their requested fees that is exhibit a significantly higher than their percentage of requested relief be obtained for this their clients this court specifically stated mccallum's victory clearly fell far short of of his goal therefore it is unreasonable to grant his attorneys more than a comparable portion of fees and costs they requested here plaintiff's attorneys start over to make a one million dollars and settle for five thousand five hundred and seventy five dollars applying the rationale endorsed by a court couple the district court should reduce plaintiff's attorneys fees award by at least ninety percent based on their lack of success i understand that i personally have three minutes and thirty three seconds would you like me to prove to my  we were before that we had our cases pending in the th circuit court of appeals and essentially what occurred is we were in the middle of mediations with the mediator from the th circuit court of appeals so there was constant communication and we had not sought be superseded spined in this matter because we had wanted to leave those funds available in the event that there was the opportunity to settle all of these cases ringback however they brought a motion to compel discovery as well as to force us to obtaining superceded by the district court we believe abused its discretion by awarding eight thousand seven hundred and forty dollars eighty three cents in addition in additional attorney fees which is essentially almost twice as much as what the settlement was in this situation and the reason that this is so offensive what the district court judge did is because local rule of practice for the united states district court for the district court in seven dollars states no further or supplemental briefing shall be submitted up without leave of court so basically the motions were filed the hearing was scheduled for october th and at that time just minutes before the hearing we are provided with establishment or brief and that sets forth their entire request for attorney fees we were not provided those in their original briefing and the lack of i'm sorry the actual documents show that there was no requests for attorney fees and costs but that was originally and that was originally provided to us in the motion that the way it works is that you have consolidated so you have your fifteen minutes for all the appeals may well you're on so i wanted to start out of serving to consider the amount of salt vs the award granted and i would suggest that meticulously st of all reducing the hourly rate from what our declarations we believe demonstrate should be the prevailing market rate and then meticulously deducting ours as excessive or otherwise not comp and simple and then based on this specific idea of  we didn't get what we had or initially requested taking a fifty percent meat ax reduction on top of that negates mr knockers argument wholly i mean there's no way to say the judge did not consider that that was the basis of this reduction but we take issue with how those meat ax reductions come about and specifically well st of all i would like to  with what we had originally sought in settlement this this figure of two million ninety eight thousand seven hundred and seventy five dollars is fictionalized we never sought it the st time it appears fifty one dollars thirty cents in fees and costs march th two thousand and fifteen i approached defense counsel i sought to negotiate settlement for polio in borlase specifically to prevent litigation regarding this collective apparently they can she can correct me if i'm wrong five thousand five hundred and seventy five dollars recovery forty four thousand seven hundred and eighty five dollars  thousand five hundred dollars which would include these difficult for us to prove off the clock to have course he ended up getting five thousand dollars that's five times as much as they ever offer ok if i understand how have a graph at the end of my opening day for what we believe i mean that's an approximate one hundred and forty mine i believe that we are where the district court where because the district court goes through walking through saying look at the declarations of course we have this one off situation with the plumber's declaration that keeps coming back you know why and then the district court said i look at this i look at collect reality and look at actual rates i look at your experience and i am i even up to you from the roberts litigation so representing an indigent defendant relying on fee shifting statutes is different than the amount that the same lawyer may go out and have a client paid him to represent them and that the lodestar calculation should be properly calculated and i ask you about the legal question yesterday and i guess you'd say the legal questions abuse of discretion is that would be the is that the time for the deduction should have been taking out when calculating the lodestar rather than taking out a number of hours as excessive a number of hours is not compensate and then on top of that exacting this fifty percent meat ax reduction there are a number of cases where this court has talked about taking it here cut ten percent here without familiar with that but the court goes through very specific things one tasks that didn't advance the case duplicate time entries and you know one can disagree with the amount clerical entries and then excessive time talking about the complaint and other things each of those and then last lack of success of each of those is laid out i'm not seeing where the double counting but it talks about pulling out the excessive hours in other words these are hours without much explanation that the district judge can just say this did not contribute to your final warded therefore it's not compet so yeah i understand what you're saying but then should not the district judge be required to go through and say well these hours are not compensate for this reason instead of saying ok we're going to take a few of these hours here and sure there's nothing wrong with your time she were able to tell where you devoted these hours of for this task but we're just go fifty percent off because without again without very much explanation we find that your success was less than what we expect of you or what it what it what you expected  believe is the here in that is the double counting so our position is these types of deductions where possible should be made from the lodestar calculation done there's no finding that anything about this is rare exception and yet the analysis was done hours were taken out and then the fifty percent meat actually d to cost the attorneys at the onset to undersell these and indigent plaintiffs fines if i don't get everything that i asked for at some point in this litigation then i'm not going to get  going to tell my client this point they should so if you want to alter might lead cause these lawyers not to take these cases because of these considerations and that is a direct contradiction of this and every other fee shifting statute that i'm aware because congress hasn't acted this the policy is to encourage people to bring these cases or lawyers to bring these cases however long it's been and that's that's the whole purpose of the free shipping statute to be i have one minute left if your honour's have any questions i'd be happy to try to answer  regardless i do believe with regards to the sixteen dash one dash one thousand six hundred and ninety nine i believe that there should be a further reduction of the entire amount and i don't know what he's saying you saying that aggressive on the part of your client caused made it necessary to defend he knew the money wasn't coming paying the litigation from one side slowly made what he thinks w bases no you're not i don't believe we are and i have sixteen seconds i saw trying to do this is quickly as possible we were not very good i'm sorry your honor st of all i was not involved in that litigation at that time but based upon the record if you look at it it started in january th ringback of two thousand and fifteen and then went to the following year where it settled there wasn't very much that went on there wasn't a ton of depositions it was mostly motions i mean there if you really look at the facts and ringback what occurred during the proceedings there wasn't very much the attorneys were doing their job as far as being combative filing motions to dismiss but not being difficult in the sense of refusing to settle or anything of that sort if anything that was promulgated by the plaintiff's counsel where they were just being outrageous in their demands thank you thank you very much