Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01553/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01553-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Deborah L. Macy, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Western Imperial 2000, LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-1553-PHX-PGR 

 

 ORDER

Having reviewed the plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Related Non-Taxable Costs (doc. #74), the Court finds that the plaintiff, as the

prevailing party in this breach of contract action, is entitled to $47,068.50 in

attorneys’ fees and $1,983.27 in non-taxable expenses pursuant to A.R.S. 12-

341.01(A) and the terms of the parties’ contract.

Notwithstanding that the defendant has not objected to the $48,045.00 in

attorneys’ fees requested by the plaintiff, the Court is not obligated to accept the

plaintiff’s counsel’s billing judgment uncritically; rather, it is obligated to determine

the reasonableness of both the hours expended and the rates charged by the

plaintiff’s counsel. While the Court has no significant issue with the number of

hours billed by the plaintiff’s counsel, the Court cannot entirely accept the rates

billed by counsel for certain tasks. The Court will therefore reduce the requested

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 85 Filed 07/16/08 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 The affected tasks are time sheet entries #56 (.2 hours charged at

$250/hour), #125 (.3 hours charged at $285/hour), #259 (.2 hours charged at

$300/hour), #269 (.3 hours charged at $300/hour), #295 (.2 hours charged at

$300/hour), #296 (.1 hour charged at $300/hour), #321 (.7 hours charged at

$300/hour), and #337 (.1 hour charged at $300/hour).

2

 The time entries at issue are #113 and #114.

- 2 -

fee award by $976.50.

First, the Court will reduce the requested fee to reflect the plaintiff’s 

counsel’s improper billing at her full hourly rate for tasks she performed that were

easily delegable to her non-attorney staff. See New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air

and Water v. Espanola Mercantile Co., 72 F.3d 830, 835 (10th Cir.1996) (“When a

lawyer spends time on tasks that are easily delegable to non-professional

assistance, legal services rates are not applicable.”); Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines,

719 F.2d 670, 677 (3rd Cir. 1983) (“Nor do we approve of the wasteful use of

highly skilled and highly priced talent for matters easily delegable to nonprofessionals or less experienced associates. Routine tasks, if performed by

senior partners in large firms, should not be billed at their usual rates. A

Michelangelo should not charge Sistine Chapel rates for painting a farmer’s

barn.”) The Court concludes that the plaintiff’s counsel charged 2.1 hours for

work that she reasonably should have delegated and the Court will award fees for

those hours at $100 per hour, the rate billed by the plaintiff’s counsel’s junior legal

assistant.1

 This amounts to a reduction of $405.50 from the requested fee

amount.

Second, the Court is also reducing the requested fee by $325.00 because

the plaintiff’s counsel billed for 1.3 hours of unnecessary work on December 21,

2006 related to her drafting of the Joint Pretrial Statement.2

 As was made clear

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 85 Filed 07/16/08 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

 The plaintiff is requesting fees for Mr. Griffith at the rate of 1.4 hours at

$175.00/hour and 4.2 hours at $195.00/hour, for a total of $1,064.00 (the plaintiff

actually requested $1,086.00, but that included an overcharge of $22.00 for time

sheet entry #174). The Court will award the plaintiff $840.00 in fees for Mr.

Griffith (5.6 hours at $150.00/hour).

- 3 -

by the Court’s Scheduling Order (doc. #13), the deadline of January 5, 2007 for

filing the Joint Pretrial Statement was to be automatically vacated if a dispositive

motion was then pending, which it was since the plaintiff filed a summary

judgment motion on December 4, 2006.

Third, the Court is reducing the requested fee because the plaintiff has not

met her burden of establishing that either the initial $175.00 hourly billing rate or

the subsequent $195.00 hourly billing rate for her senior paralegal, James Griffith, 

is in line with those prevailing in the Phoenix Division of the District of Arizona for

paralegals of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation. The Court

concludes that a more reasonable paralegal billing rate is $150.00 per hour.3

 

The Court will therefore reduce the requested fee amount for Mr. Griffith’s

services by $246.00. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and

Related Non-Taxable Costs (doc. #74) is granted to the extent that the plaintiff is

awarded $47,068.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,983.27 in non-taxable expenses,

for a total of $49,051.77.

DATED this 16th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-01553-PGR Document 85 Filed 07/16/08 Page 3 of 3