decision and twenty thirteen made a finding that the plaintiffs regularly perform the once and billed eight times and therefore cut the fear ward by eighty seven and a half percent that finding is without any basis in the record the plaintiffs never double billed triple bill i'm not sure what to pull build there's just no evidence of that and that's shown by the few records themselves shown by the fact that the defendants have never claimed double billing and yet they had an expert go through and if so he records both of them the first motion and the second motion never claimed that that happened even once and it never happened even once it has been categorically denied and explained by plaintiffs judge wright came to that conclusion by  misreading a snippet from a declaration which was actually saying the opposite in explaining that the opposite in the sense that what happened in the first three let me ask you this like say for example taking the deposition that he sa time records the first motion by attorney judge wright criticized that and said why don't you want us to do it by cases so the second time we turned it around and we we allocated time by cases and one of the things that the declaration was explaining was that there was some time that was really aleko bull to all the cases and not that it was w know that that we did it for each case but  that time recorded in a certain case was actually relevant to my time as a good example i spent fifty seven hours i had fifty seven hours in this case it was entirely and virtually entirely on the seventeen thousand yes hours of work done in this case and with the fees that after judge wright reduced it by eighty seven percent or  and just start stood by his but we didn't actually appear in argue again you just made the motion did you have that's right there was that was only one argument when i was on the for the first time around and it's actually in that argument the judge wright could have dealt with all of those things in fact this court told him to deal with all those things in the first decision in the first this is and he tried to explain those things and took it you know across the board cuts that were not well explained it can't be the case that there would be an alternative ground where there would be absolutely no explanation for why the cut would be there i mean that this court said to him if you want to  more than ten percent you have to give an explanation and the only thing that he did was was was misread a declaration without and i would submit sorry it takes it took me five minutes to figure out that my time wasn't multiplied by eight the chart i mean we have the chart of everybody's hours you have that you have the original time sheets of everybody's hours and you have them divided by cases it's absolutely clear when you settle the case with tell me what the stipulation lies about the attorneys fees well i'm sure my colleagues are hating me for this by now but but when we settled the case with the clients got five hundred thousand dollars up front that was paid the clients have all their money we were we made an agreement that we could make a motion for thirty cities and we would only ask for up to a million even there are loads that it was close to double that in fact we think it was double that but and we could ask for twenty five thousand dollars for up to twenty for the preparation of the attorneys fees so and to be honest i convince people that they should do that because i thought look there's no way that i mean look at all the time that everybody spent on this case there's no way this case is go really rates were appropriate and if you put those hourly rates together even with the defendant's expert and we're going to be over the million dollars that we can ask for that's the reason really that and this is seventeen thousand hours on one side and four thousand other and i think that based on the common knowledge of what it takes that litigated and all these the positions i think that the court without going out on too big a limb could give us the maximum that we are entitled to but if the court feels that's not appropriate the one thing we would request is that the that it would be sent down to a different judge because it's fairly clear at this point the judge right is not prepared to it to live what specifically from all right obviously you were right over four hundred thousand and then the court sends it back and then you down you go you get have again but but then tell me what else more money than your clients guide i'm not going to do that it took us filing a petition for writ of mandamus for him to rule to begin with he then came up with this formula that knocked out all this time without really looking at the reasonable way and i you know people could disagree with time i mean there's always some disagreement about whether something's a useful or not but this was a hard fought case that actually led we believe that and i think it's fair to say that led to the how were those hours reflected in the billing statements well in the first knowing statement they were just we put my time in we didn't allocate over cases in the second version i think five or so hours were allocated to one case and the other the rest of my time in fact we took less time for some reason they cut me but the the rest of my time was allocated under the menow column which is what mr cook was trying to explain is that gratian there was a category that we put in for hours that were fairly attributable to all of that and nighttime in my associates time or in that category in a record there is a category this a court's finding of fact and ruling is not abuse of discretion the the court or the appellant have argued about the fact that this is the amount of the record here one of the problems was created by this and its case is the fact that the court only had one motion before it and was distinctly different from the other two motions the court's ruling is expressed based on exactly what the motion and the motion supporting declaration say and the plaintiffs in their appeal have been unable or at least they did not identify anything in the fee motion that contradicts the district court's ruling and that they don't allege th time that was below us pacific by specific lawyer a specific day it wasn't below in his official time so i didn't really see anything in the record supporting that as records finding was there something that you didn't put in the brief that would support it would you cite me two pages in the e r where the same lawyer on the same day the same amount of time and it showed up in multiple locations we did not address of that matter your honor it isn't that important problem is the way the records were created the you know again this is the first time that the records were divided by case instead and explanation has been this has to film the mono time but it's not just the and the record shows that there were many issues that were common time there and this is from the motion itself if part if the court got to that number by saying they  that it was a time billing or what are two whatever they were say whatever the court was saying and you can show us in the record where it is and we can't find where it is how come we how can we have hold what the district court did  align with the with the plaintiffs repellents told the court and what their motion says the motion of it says that the all the work for the twelve b six motions which are early in the case the june twenty fifth two thousand to ten motions in six of the cases it wasn't like they told the district court we build eight times or anything even close to that it was just somewhat ambiguous but then they clarified in the motion to reconsider why why doesn't the ag correct any misunderstanding with just record here because the motion for consideration was what was alleged in the motion for consideration was that the court didn't understand the evidence and that's exactly what he said and what judge wright came back and said was emotion reconsider that's correct your honor mr sevan could you and i have a question i have i was looking at the records and it was i think the judge right was they have a deposition was taken to one witness and it took three hours  star but the but the but the the court is allowed to make it across the board cut and not to delve into the different areas to review to look for in trying to upon what the motion itself read and the fact that it what about the motion part me what about the motion tells us we played just to pull the build it says it both in the motion and in the sporting decoration if it in fact because then apply based on what was represented in the motion read meat evenly what the admission of the plecos was that is the basis for a finding of a tuple building please him well in the decoration of mr cook and your seven fifteen he says in such circumstances is reasonable to allocate this time across all cases the same is and was billed in this manner it goes on for several pages and pursuant to what was represented in both the motion and sporting declaration the court was pro was appropriate for the court to make under there now even though the court concluded that the court was wrong but that even if the court were wrong the court's application of the law was appropriate and it was based on what was in we might get a right i'm sorry if there is because we might get it right and then it wouldn't be appealed again no but it would be there is and the reason would be because it has a fact  of sanctioning or censoring the court the district court by the court taking control the court has previously expressed to an appellate commissioner to and if there are factual findings that need to be made and then the appellate commissioner puts it back to us and if we didn't agree with it then we wouldn't sign off on it and we would send it back so i mean essentially there is a mechanism to do it i think it's clear from the the court order of this a court's order that judge wright saw this one issue and dealt with the one issue and i think at that point he felt it was enough that he also but he said things you know i mean first  i sort of took it through it it's a little bit like when you do statutory construction you're not supposed to reach an absurd result some of the things that you have in your backdrop is that there was a stipulation that there that they could ask for a million dollars in attorney fees and then it then the judge does four hundred something thousand it comes up we say you didn't give adequate reasons that goes back and then it goes down to two hundred and something thousand dollars and and he says in there are things like a law student could have done this or essential a you know my grandmother could have done this and my grandmother only has a sixth grade education and i mean and cite ethical things in the  saying that there are there are ethical violations and the backdrop of that is you can't tell us in the record where there's evidence to support oc to pull billing which is what he says his justification going down to two hundred seventeen thousand dollars or whatever it was none of that makes an error how if we send it back to him again is that thank god to go down to one hundred twenty five thousand dollars if you have to that this was there was only one motion that the the appellant's want to address the fact that there's several motions the problem is the second motion there's a second theme motion which was not even authorized by the court judge wright had so much animists he couldn't just reject motion he had notes that it was not authorized but judge wright was now faced with a completely different the motion different different evidence than that he's done his complaint that the appellant should have organized the first one by attorney and he said that on the record said that that was why they did it however they have fallen motion asking to file additional declarations but they didn't seem as if a completely different fee motion was complete different evidence rendering you impossible for judge roy to go back to the original one because that was no longer before him now he's got which is what the court remanded back was the original motion it was no longer before judge right now it's a brand new motion with brand new evidence and the courts and the parents are saying this is how we did it and he looks at he says well based on that this cut is appropriate he never has to look even deeper than that because they told him that's what they've done and when you came up for it before in the motion for reconsideration the basis of motion reconsideration was inappropriate it was not a proper basis for relief the judge writes ruling is based on what's peers in the record it is clear that there are few you know the plan parents spend a lot of time talking about what does work allocate mean does it mean divide or is it just too to a point certain dollars to certain issues judge wright's decision was not implausible it was not illogical it was based on what the he was provided and and it had support in the record and for those reasons the the in your declaration as well as address points top court's time to that and i think that shows you know that was enough for judge wright's rely  look at the say well look how many time they spent that is not determined if this case was not what they have said the police department was not eradicated because of this case it was an insurance issue and only insurance issue evidence and you apply that hours that their expert found to be appropriate i believe it's over a million dollars when you just put those two together so you have even their version of what the appropriate hours are when you take that with judge wright's hourly rates i think it makes it a relatively easy decision