Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04756/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04756-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 896
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Arbitration
Cause of Action: 9:9 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Loan

---

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

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leslie E Orman,

Petitioner,

v. 

Central Loan Administration & Reporting, 

et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-04756-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

On December 16, 2019, the Court entered an order vacating Petitioner Leslie 

Orman’s $10.3 million arbitration award and awarding sanctions against Orman and her 

former counsel, Jeremy Claridge, to Respondents Central Loan Administration and 

Reporting (“Cenlar”) and CitiMortgage Inc. (“Citi”) (collectively, “Respondents”). (Doc. 

39.) In that order, the Court directed Respondents to submit an itemized listing of the legal 

fees they incurred in this matter and further directed Orman and Claridge to submit 

objections to those fees. (Id. at 13.) All parties have now submitted their documentation, 

and the Court is prepared to determine the appropriate amount of fees to be assessed against 

Orman and Claridge.

BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural history of this case is set out in the Court’s December 

16 order. In a nutshell, Orman attempted to use this Court to confirm a sham arbitration 

award. (Id. at 13.) Relying on 9 U.S.C. § 10 and basic tenets of contract law, the Court 

vacated the award. (Id. at 5-9.) The Court also determined that Orman and Claridge had 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 1 of 19
- 2 -

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

27

28

acted with bad faith—Claridge recklessly filed an application to confirm an obviously 

fraudulent arbitration award, and Orman was trying to use this Court to harass her former 

mortgage lender. (Id. at 8-13.) Recognizing that “bad faith comes in various forms” and 

that Claridge’s failures were those of “judgment and prudence,” the Court allocated 10% 

of the award to Claridge and held Orman responsible for the other 90%. (Id.)

On January 6, 2020, Claridge moved for reconsideration of the fee award, or, 

alternatively, an extension of time. (Doc. 44.) The Court denied the request for 

reconsideration but extended the time for Claridge and Orman to object. (Doc. 45.)

All parties have now submitted their documentation. Before the Court are 

Respondents’ itemized fee statements and supporting documentation (Doc. 42), Orman’s 

objections and supporting documentation (Doc. 46), Claridge’s objections and supporting 

documentation (Doc. 48), and Respondents’ responses to both objections (Docs. 47, 50). 

ANALYSIS

The Court has already determined that Respondents are entitled to sanctions. (Doc. 

39.) Thus, the only issue at this stage is the reasonableness of Respondents’ requested fees.

The Court sanctioned Orman and Claridge pursuant to its inherent authority “to 

award sanctions in the form of attorneys’ fees against a party or counsel who acts in ‘bad 

faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.’” Leon v. IDX Sys. Corp., 464 F.3d. 

951, 961 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Batarse, 115 F.3d 644, 

648 (9th Cir. 1997)). Under that power, any fees imposed “must be compensatory rather 

than punitive in nature” and “go no further than to redress the wronged party for losses 

sustained; it may not impose an additional amount as punishment for the sanctioned party’s 

misbehavior.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017). 

Thus, “the court can shift only those attorney’s fees incurred because of the misconduct at 

issue” and must “establish a causal link—between the litigant’s misbehavior and legal fees 

paid by the opposing party.” Id.

Here, the causal link is easy to establish. The bad-faith conduct at issue is the 

reckless, frivolous filing of the petition to confirm a sham arbitration award. (Doc. 1.) As 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 2 of 19
- 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

27

28

the Court stated in its previous order, “Orman concocted a rambling document that she then 

had rubber-stamped by an arbitrator who merely restated the near-gibberish contained in 

Orman’s ‘counter offer,’” and Claridge saw fit to file this legal nullity.1(Doc. 39 at 10-

11.) In other words, this litigation was pursued in bad faith from its inception. 

Accordingly, the Court concludes that all attorneys’ fees incurred by Respondents in this 

matter were incurred because of the misconduct. Respondents would not have incurred

these fees but for the filing of a completely baseless petition to confirm. Haeger, 137 S. 

Ct. at 1187 (causal connection in attorneys’ fees cases is “appropriately framed as a butfor test”). See also Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 56-57 (1991) (stating that 

award of entire amount of fees incurred was appropriate when offending party’s actions 

“were part of a sordid scheme of deliberate misuse of the judicial process”); Lu v. United 

States, 921 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2019) (“In an exceptional case such as Chambers, where 

fees associated with the entirety of an action . . . would not have been incurred but for the 

bad faith conduct of a litigant, the district court may shift all of a party’s fees . . . in one 

fell swoop.”) (internal quotations omitted). 

With that in mind, the Court will consider all fees requested after this action was 

initiated on July 18, 2019. (Doc. 1.) All told, Cenlar seeks $17,056.50 and Citi seeks 

$20,998.71, for a total of $38,055.21. (Doc. 42-2 at 4; Doc. 42-2 at 10.) These fees 

encompass the research and writing of Respondents’ papers.

I. Reasonableness Of Fees

To determine whether Respondents’ fees are reasonable, the Court looks to whether 

the hourly rates are reasonable, and then whether the time spent on the matter is reasonable.

Kaufman v. Warner Bros. Entm’t Inc., 2019 WL 2084460, *13 (D. Ariz. 2019).

Reasonableness is typically determined through the “lodestar method.” The lodestar is 

calculated by “multiplying the number of hours the prevailing party reasonably expended 

1 As previously noted, other awards issued by the “arbitrator” involved in this case 

have been vacated by district courts around the country. (Doc. 39 at 12 n.5.) A district 

judge in the Northern District of Texas recently ordered the arbitrator to appear “to present 

evidence demonstrating the validity and legitimacy of the purported arbitration award” 

filed in that matter, and invited input from other entities that have been forced to defend 

against similar sham arbitration awards. (Doc. 47-1 at 2-5.)

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 3 of 19
- 4 -

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

27

28

on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 

973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008). 

The first step in the process is to determine a reasonable rate. “The prevailing 

market rate in the community is indicative of a reasonable hourly rate. The fee applicant 

has the burden of producing satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its 

counsel, that the requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for 

similar services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation.” Jordan v. 

Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987) (citation and footnote omitted). 

When, as here, a client has actually paid fees, “the best indicator of a reasonable hourly 

rate . . . is the rate charged by the lawyer to the client.” Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 

2015 WL 13567069, *2 (D. Ariz. 2015).

Both Respondents in this case are represented by Ballard Spahr LLP, and for this 

matter, Cenlar was charged $665 per hour for the work of Andrew Petrie, $420 per hour 

for the work of Chase Bales, and $300 per hour for the work of Jillian Andrews. (Doc. 42-

1 ¶¶ 7, 12, 15.) Citi had a pre-existing arrangement with Ballard Spahr and was billed at a 

lower rate—$519.75 per hour for Petrie, $237 for Bales, and $300 for Andrews. (Id.)

Petrie is a partner at Ballard Spahr and has been in practice since 1981. (Id. ¶ 6.) Bales, 

an associate, has been practicing since 2013. (Id. ¶ 10.) Andrews has been practicing since 

2019 and completed two judicial clerkships before joining the firm. (Id. ¶ 13.) 

Whether these rates are reasonable is determined by reference to the forum in which 

the district court sits. Camacho, 523 F.3d at 978. Other courts within this district have 

determined that a reasonable rate “for highly skilled, experienced, and regarded lawyers” 

involved in “complex, high-dollar commercial litigation” can range as high as $552 per 

hour. Kaufman, 2019 WL 2084460 at *13. See also Edwards v. Vemma Nutrition, 2019 

WL 5684192, *13 (D. Ariz. 2019) (upholding $350 hourly rate for partners and noting it 

was a “below market rate[] for Phoenix attorneys of their caliber”); Excel Fortress Ltd. v. 

Wilhelm, 2019 WL 5294837, *4 (D. Ariz. 2019) (upholding $500 hourly rate for partner). 

Similarly, reasonable associate rates approved in this district have reached $280 per hour. 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 4 of 19
- 5 -

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

27

28

Edwards, 2019 WL 5684192 at *13. In light of those decisions, the Court finds that some 

of the rates charged in this case exceed the reasonable rate of Phoenix attorneys. The rate 

Petrie and Bales charged Cenlar exceeds the norm for lawyers in the Phoenix community, 

so it will be adjusted down. Because the hourly rate charged to Citi for Petrie’s work falls 

within the reasonable range for the Phoenix area, the Court will adjust the billing rate for 

Cenlar to the same rate—$519.75 per hour. Andrews’s rate, though slightly above what 

other courts have found reasonable, is not so far removed from that range, and thus provides 

a useful benchmark in adjusting Bales’s rate. Accordingly, Bales’s rate charged to Cenlar 

will be adjusted to match Andrews’s—$300 per hour.2

Claridge suggests the hourly rate for all work done on this matter should be set at 

his normal billing rate of $250 per hour. (Doc. 48 at 3.) It is unclear why Claridge thinks 

his billing rate should control another attorney’s, but it seems based on his argument that 

Respondents’ counsels’ fees are above the average billing rate for the entire state of 

Arizona. (Id.) This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, a statewide average does not 

inform whether the fees billed by a particular lawyer in a particular matter are reasonable. 

2 The Court notes that Respondents did not submit an affidavit from a third-party 

attorney attesting to the reasonableness of their attorneys’ rates. Instead, Petrie’s affidavit 

contains a paragraph averring that “[t]he hourly rates Ballard Spahr charged for myself, 

Mr. Bales and Ms. Andrews are reasonable. I base that determination and my opinion on 

my more than 38 years’ experience in the field of commercial litigation, and after 

consulting with the litigation partners in Ballard Spahr’s Phoenix office about the rates they 

charge and the rates charged more generally in the Phoenix legal community for lawyers 

of similar experience.” (Doc. 42-1 ¶ 16.) This sort of certification is of questionable utility. 

As noted, the rule in the Ninth Circuit is that “[t]he fee applicant has the burden of 

producing satisfactory evidence, in addition to the affidavits of its counsel, that the 

requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services of 

lawyers of reasonably comparable skill and reputation.” Jordan, 815 F.2d at 1263

(emphasis added). Thus, the usual practice is to submit an affidavit from an attorney whose 

fees are not the subject of the fee request. See, e.g., Excel Fortress, 2019 WL 5294837 at

*4 (“[T]he uncontradicted declaration from [a third-party attorney] establishes that the rates 

charged by Mr. McHugh and Ms. McHugh are reasonable rates in the Phoenix market for 

attorneys of comparable skill and experience . . . .”); Pierce v. County of Orange, 905 F. 

Supp. 2d 1017, 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“Plaintiffs submit declarations from Peter J. 

Eliasberg, the Legal Director at the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of 

Southern California . . ., and Paula D. Pearlman, the Executive Director of the Disability 

Rights Legal Center . . . , both of whom corroborated that the hourly rates sought are in 

line with the rates charged in Southern California by similar attorneys for similar work.”). 

Nevertheless, the recent decisions of courts within this District evaluating the 

reasonableness of fees charged by large-firm attorneys provide a sufficient foundation for 

assessing the reasonableness of the fees sought in this case.

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 5 of 19
- 6 -

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

27

28

Kaufman, 2019 WL 2084460 at *12. In the same vein, when a client has actually paid for 

legal service, what the client paid is the best measure of a reasonable fee. Jackson 2015 

WL 13567069 at *2. This is particularly true here, where Respondents were being sued for 

more than $10 million. It makes sense they would hire highly skilled, if expensive, 

attorneys in light of the amount in controversy. 

Second, Claridge has provided no support for the contention that his fee is 

necessarily what other lawyers in Phoenix should charge. Claridge does not practice in 

Phoenix, nor has he indicated that he possesses the same level of experience in large 

corporate cases as Respondents’ counsel. Without more, there is no reason to use 

Claridge’s fee as the baseline in this case. 

Turning to the hours expended, the Court has reviewed the itemized billing entries 

for both Cenlar and Citi (Doc. 42-2) and finds the activities and the time allotted are 

reasonable. Although Claridge objects to “duplicitous” entries (which the Court interprets 

as objecting to duplicative entries) (Doc. 48 at 3), Petrie’s sworn affidavit makes clear that, 

when a service benefitted both Cenlar and Citi, the time spent was allocated 50/50 between 

the two clients (Doc. 42-1 ¶ 9). Thus, entries such as the September 25, 2019 entry for 

Petrie, which states “[r]eview Orman’s motion to reconsider and affidavit in support” and 

which appears in both statements (entry 84 in Citi’s, entry 23 in Cenlar’s), do not represent 

the same .1 hours spent on the task charged to both clients, but instead represent a total of 

.2 hours spent on the task, distributed evenly between the two clients benefitting from the 

work. Such billing is not duplicative. The only subtraction the Court will make, by request 

of Respondents, is entry 26 on Citi’s itemized statement. (Doc. 47 at 7 n.6.) Otherwise, 

the hours submitted by Respondents are reasonable expenditures of time.

Multiplying the hours worked by the reasonable hourly rate, and subtracting the 

entry discussed above, the reasonable fees sought by Cenlar total $12,981.03, and those 

sought by Citi total $20,983.71, for a total of $33,964.74. With that baseline in mind, the 

Court will turn to the remainder of Claridge’s and Orman’s objections.

...

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 6 of 19
- 7 -

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

27

28

II Objections

In addition to the objections addressed above, Orman and Claridge raise a variety 

of objections to specific fee entries, as well as to the entire fee amount. (Docs. 46, 48.)

A. Timeliness

Both Orman and Claridge argue that Respondents’ fee requests are untimely. Both 

rely on the fact that the Court’s initial order awarding fees directed Respondents to submit 

their itemized statements “within 14 days of this Order.” (Doc. 39.) The order was signed 

on December 12, 2019 but was not entered on the docket until December 16, 2019. (Id.) 

Respondents submitted their itemized statements and supporting documentation on 

December 30, 2019. (Doc. 42.) In Orman’s view, this renders the entire fee request 

untimely, because the order was signed on December 12. (Doc. 46 at 1-3.) She argues the 

14-day period ran from the date the order was signed, making the due date December 26

and rendering Respondents’ submission on December 30 untimely. (Id. at 2.) 

Claridge doesn’t argue the fee request was submitted four days late, but he does 

argue it was submitted five hours late. (Doc. 48 at 1.) Claridge stresses that the Court’s 

order required Respondents to submit their request “within 14 days.” (Id.) The Court’s 

order was docketed at 10:23 am on December 16, and Respondents submitted their request 

on December 30 at 3:45 pm. (Id.) In Claridge’s view, Respondents thus did not submit 

“within” 14 days, so their entire request should be rejected. (Id.)

Both objections are without merit. A judgment is considered entered when it is 

added to the civil docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c). See also Cannella v. Lentz, 396 F. 

Supp. 2d 435, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). Thus, the Court’s order became effective on the date 

it was entered, rather than the date it was signed. The order was entered on December 16, 

2019. (Doc. 39.) The time for Respondents to submit their fee request started at that point.

Fourteen days from December 16 was December 30, not December 26. 

Claridge’s objection fails for similar reasons. When computing times for courtordered deadlines, periods stated in days “include the last day of the period.” See Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C). The “last day” ends “for electronic filing, at midnight in the court’s 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 7 of 19
- 8 -

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

27

28

time zone.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(4)(A). Claridge does not dispute that December 30 

was the last day. (Doc. 48 at 1.) Nor does he dispute that Respondents submitted their 

documentation before midnight on December 30. (Id.) By Claridge’s own admission, 

then, Respondents’ submission was timely. 

B. Failure To Conduct Good Faith Settlement Conference

Local Rule 54.2(d)(1) requires that requests for attorneys’ fees be accompanied by 

“a separate statement of the moving counsel . . . certifying that, after personal consultation 

and good faith efforts to do so, the parties have been unable to satisfactorily resolve all 

disputed issues relating to attorneys’ fees.” Respondents provided such a statement (Doc. 

42 at 2-3), but Orman contends the settlement attempt was conducted in bad faith (Doc. 46 

at 3-4). Specifically, she claims that Respondents did not attempt to contact her before the 

deadline to submit their fee request. (Id.) This argument, however, is premised on Orman’s 

erroneous belief that Respondents’ filing deadline was December 26, rather than December 

30. Orman does not argue the settlement attempt was otherwise invalid. 

C. Noncompliance With LRCiv. 54.2(e)

Orman next argues that, by submitting individual fee statements for Cenlar and Citi 

rather than combining them, Respondents failed to list their services chronologically as 

required by LRCiv. 54.2(e)(1). (Doc. 46 at 4-5.) Orman further argues that certain entries 

in the fee statements do not comply with LRCiv. 54.2(e)(1)(B) because those entries list 

multiple tasks, rather than the individual tasks required by the rule. (Id.) Both arguments 

are unavailing.

Orman’s argument that Respondents should have submitted a single, joint fee 

statement is premised solely on this Court’s December 16 order, which stated 

“Respondents shall submit an electronic Microsoft Excel spreadsheet . . . .” (Doc. 39 at 

13.) In Orman’s view, this was an “explicit” command that Respondents submit only one 

fee statement. The Court doubts that submitting individual fee statements for individual 

clients is erroneous, but even if it were, such a technical error does not warrant denial of 

attorneys’ fees. Cf. Wilkin v. Time Warner Cable Co., 10 F. Supp. 3d 299, 319 (N.D.N.Y. 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 8 of 19
- 9 -

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

27

28

2014) (holding that a “technical error” does not prejudice an opposing party when seeking 

attorneys’ fees if the sanctioned party is otherwise provided adequate notice of the fees 

sought). See also Matthiesen v. Matthiesen, 2017 WL 10776715, * 2 (S.D. Fla. 2017) 

(“The [court] . . . is hesitant to substantively deny an award of attorneys’ fees because of 

such purely technical errors.”). 

In addition to her broad objection, Orman objects to some specific fee entries, such 

as row three of Cenlar’s fee statement. (Doc. 46 at 5.) That entry, dated August 26, 2019, 

lists multiple activities. (Doc. 42-2 at 2 [second entry from the top].). In Orman’s view, 

this violates LRCiv. 54.2(e)(1)(B), which requires a different entry for “each individual 

unrelated task performed on” a day. Review of the challenged entries reveals that, although 

those entries do contain multiple tasks and the time devoted to those tasks, tasks within an 

entry are all interrelated. Not only do such entries not run afoul of 54.2(e)(1)(B), they 

closely align with the examples of permissible entries provided by the local rules. See, 

e.g., LRCiv. 54.2(e)(2)(B) & (C).

D. No Fee Agreement For Citi

Orman argues that Citi’s fee request should be categorically denied because 

Respondents failed to attach the fee agreement between Ballard Spahr and Citi. (Doc. 46 

at 5-6.) Respondents only attached a letter from Citi to Ballard Spahr retaining Ballard 

Spahr’s services for an action related to Orman’s property in Pennsylvania. (Id. See also

Doc. 42-3 at 6 [engagement letter]; Doc. 39 at 1-2 [detailing the factual history of this case, 

which deals in part with the Pennsylvania property]; Orman v. Citimortgage, 2016 WL 

1592948 (E.D. Pa. 2016) [detailing the history of Orman’s litigation against Citi].). Orman 

argues that, because the letter provides no “recitation of fee to be charged for services,” it 

is inadequate under LRCiv. 54.2(d)(2). (Doc. 46 at 6.)

Local Rule 54.2(d)(2) requires a party seeking fees to submit “[a] complete copy of 

any written agreement, or a full recitation of any oral fee agreement” but further provides 

that “[i]f no fee agreement exists, then counsel must attach a statement to that effect.” Here, 

Respondents acknowledged in their memorandum that the engagement letter between 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 9 of 19
- 10 -

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

27

28

Ballard Spahr and Citi didn’t specify the hourly rate Citi would be charged (Doc. 42 at 3 

n.1), and Respondents’ counsel then verified in his affidavit the actual rate that Citi was 

charged (Doc. 42-1 ¶¶ 7, 12, 15). This approach was permissible under Local Rule 

54.2(d)(2). Moreover, even if Respondents should have provided a different document 

verifying the fee arrangement between Ballard Spahr and Citi, Orman and Claridge 

suffered no harm—they had all the information they needed to respond to the fee request 

on the merits, and the Citi rate was substantially lower than the Cenlar rate. Gary v. Carbon 

Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 484 (D. Ariz. 2019) (excusing fee-seeking party’s 

failure to attach fee agreement because counsel had otherwise averred to his fee 

agreement).

E. Petrie’s Involvement

Orman and Claridge object to Petrie’s involvement in this case. Orman contends 

that, before Petrie was admitted pro hac vice to practice in the District of Arizona (he is 

based in Colorado), his involvement in this case constituted unauthorized practice of law.

(Doc. 46 at 6-7.) Additionally, Claridge argues that Petrie’s involvement in this case was 

unnecessary. (Doc. 48 at 3-4.) Claridge views Petrie’s involvement as “correlation 

between attorneys that did not need to be engaged.” (Id.) No specific remedy is offered 

for this supposed unnecessary correlation, but it constitutes part of Claridge’s argument 

that the fee request should be dismissed outright. (Id. at 4.)

1. Unauthorized Practice Of Law

Any lawyer practicing in Arizona is subject to the Arizona Supreme Court’s 

regulatory authority. Ariz. S. Ct. R. 31(a). Generally, the Arizona Supreme Court prohibits 

anyone who is not a member of the Arizona bar from practicing within Arizona. Ariz. S. 

Ct. R. 31(b). An exemption to that prohibition, however, is that lawyers licensed in a 

jurisdiction other than Arizona are allowed to “engage in conduct that is permitted under 

ER 5.5 of the rules of professional conduct.” Ariz. S. Ct. R. 31(d)(27). E.R. 5.5(c)(1), in 

turn, provides that an attorney licensed in another jurisdiction “may provide legal services 

on a temporary basis in Arizona that involve Arizona law” if those services “are undertaken 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 10 of 19
- 11 -

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

27

28

in association with a lawyer who is admitted to practice in Arizona and who actively 

participates in the matter.” Id.

This rule forecloses Orman’s objection. The record shows that Petrie was Citi’s 

initial point of contact. (Doc. 42-3 at 6.) After Petrie performed the intake and initial 

review of the matter on July 29, 2019, Bales quickly became involved. (Doc. 42-2 at 5.) 

Bales, a member of the Arizona bar in good standing, then became the attorney of record. 

(Doc. 11.) Petrie continued to work in association with Bales up until he was admitted pro 

hac vice on September 10, 2019. Bales actively participated in the case throughout—as 

Claridge points out, Bales was the only attorney with whom he had contact for most of this 

litigation. (Doc. 48 at 3.) In other words, Petrie’s services were “undertaken in association 

with a lawyer admitted to practice in Arizona and [who] actively participate[d] in the 

matter.” Ariz. E.R. 5.5(c)(1). Such services do not constitute unauthorized practice of law. 

2. Petrie’s Association

Claridge’s argument that Petrie “did not need to be engaged” lacks merit. “Multiple 

attorneys may, within reason, collaborate on important drafts and/or bill time for work on 

the same filing.” Edwards, 2019 WL 5684192 at *14. Especially in the context of a large 

firm, it is customary that a partner will engage an associate to assist on a new legal matter. 

Moreover, Claridge seems to get the argument backward, because Petrie involved 

Bales, not the other way around. Petrie, by assigning the brunt of the work to Bales, 

actually reduced his clients’ costs compared to if Petrie had done the work himself. Such 

an approach is usually requested by those ordered to pay fees. See id. (denying sanctioned 

party’s contention that more work should have been assigned to lower-billing associates); 

Kaufman, 2019 WL 2084460 at *13 (same). Thus, the association of multiple attorneys 

worked to Claridge’s benefit.

F. Fees Incurred In Preparing Fee Request

Orman argues that Respondents are not entitled to the fees incurred in preparing 

their fee request, known as fees-on-fees. (Doc. 46 at 9.) Citing LRCiv. 54.2(c)(2), Orman 

claims that Respondents’ failure to cite legal authority entitling them to fees-on-fees 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 11 of 19
- 12 -

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

27

28

precludes them from recovering such fees. (Id.) 

Orman is correct that LRCiv. 54.2(c)(2) requires a party seeking fees to provide 

legal authority to recover fees-on-fees. Respondents cited no such authority in their initial 

request for fees. (Doc. 13 at 10; Doc. 15 at 13.) Additionally, the Court’s order concluding 

that Respondents were entitled to sanctions made no specific mention of whether the 

sanction award would include fees incurred in preparing Respondents’ supporting 

materials. (Doc. 39 at 9-14.) That, admittedly, made it unclear whether Respondents 

needed to provide authority for seeking fees-on-fees in their initial memorandum (which 

they failed to do). (Doc. 42.) However, after Orman raised an objection under Local Rule 

54.2(c)(2) in her response, Respondents included in their reply a citation to Camacho, 

which provides that “it would be inconsistent to dilute a fees award by refusing to 

compensate attorneys for the time they reasonably spent in establishing their rightful claim 

to the fee.” 523 F.3d at 981.

The problem with Respondents’ approach is Camacho also contains the following 

passage: “In statutory fee cases, federal courts, including our own, have uniformly held 

that time spent in establishing the entitlement to and amount of the fee is compensable.”

Id. (emphasis added) (quoting In re Nucorp Energy, Inc., 764 F.2d 655, 659-660 (9th Cir. 

1985)). The fee award in Camacho, including fees-on-fees, arose under 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(3). Id. at 978. Here, fees were awarded pursuant to the Court’s inherent 

authority. (Doc. 39 at 10, 12.) The purpose of each is different—statutory fee provisions 

exist to “encourage private enforcement of the law,” Camacho, 523 F.3d at 978, while 

sanctions imposed pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority are meant to dissuade parties 

from acting “in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons,” Leon 464 F.3d 

at 961 (quoting Primus Auto. Fin. Servs., Inc., 115 F.3d at 648). Given these separate 

justifications, it would be improper to import Respondents’ cited authority to justify feeson-fees under the Court’s inherent authority. Aviva USA Corp. v. Vazirani, 2012 WL 

2503962, *2 (D. Ariz. 2012) (“Although Aviva does cite to authority for awarding [feeson-fees] under other fee-shifting rules, they have failed to do so for sanctions under the 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 12 of 19
- 13 -

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

27

28

Court’s inherent power.”).

Accordingly, the Court will strike the fee entries associated with the preparation of 

Respondents’ supporting documentation. To that end, the Court will strike all entries for 

both Citi and Cenlar that occurred after December 12, 2019, except for the December 17 

entry (which reflects Andrews’s time preparing and filing a notice of substitution of 

counsel). (Doc. 42-2 at 4, 9-10.) This amounts to a reduction of $2,192.65 in Cenlar’s 

request, and a reduction of $2,021.54 in Citi’s request.3

G. Research And Clerical Work

Orman’s final objection is that she “should not be responsible for paying for ‘on the 

job’ training of attorneys and paralegals who don’t know procedures for filing a Motion to 

Dismiss for example, or statutes of the subject matter they are working on, or for clerical 

or secretarial work.” (Doc. 46 at 10.) The spreadsheet Orman submitted along with her 

objections applies this argument to entries with tasks such as “research” and “review.” 

This objection likely stems from unfamiliarity with the work of lawyers. These 

entries are not indicative of “on the job training”—instead, they reflect attorneys taking 

proper care in learning the relevant law and following the appropriate procedures. Not 

only is such research proper, it is expressly contemplated by the local rules. See, e.g., 

LRCiv. 54.2(e)(B). No lawyer knows and can recall every aspect of law or procedure 

involved in a given case. These entries reflect a proper use of time. 

CONCLUSION

After adjusting Cenlar’s fee request to bring the hourly rate in line with the 

reasonable rate for Phoenix, and striking the entries associated with the preparation of the 

fee statement, the total, reasonable fees requested by Cenlar are $10,788.38. After striking 

the fees-on-fees related entries in Citi’s fee request, Citi’s total reasonable fees requested

is $18,962.17. Pursuant to the Court’s order awarding fees, Claridge is responsible for 

10% of these fees and Orman is responsible for the other 90%. (Doc. 39 at 13.)

...

3 This moots Orman’s incorrect contention that entries after December 26, 2019 were 

untimely. (Doc. 46 at 9-10.) 

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 13 of 19
- 14 -

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

27

28

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

(1) Claridge shall pay $1,078.84 to Cenlar;

(2) Claridge shall pay $1,896.22 to Citi;

(3) Orman shall pay $9,709.54 to Cenlar; 

(4) Orman shall pay $17,065.95 to Citi; and

(5) Claridge and Orman shall satisfy these obligations within 60 days from the 

date of this Order.

Dated this 26th day of February, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 14 of 19
Work Date Timekeeper Name Hours Worked Work Value Court adjusted Narrative

7/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Email research regarding identifying the arbitrator and his company7/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to research and intelligence center regarding information concerning MHP, and getting clean pictures of its website7/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review research department's results and website for MHP, and email regarding checking ministries referenced there7/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.70 363.83 363.83 Outline opposition to motion to confirm award7/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.50 259.88 259.88 Review petition to confirm arbitration award and attached award, and preliminary search for arbitrator or the company acting as arbitration provider7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to C. Bales re sanctions options and meet-and-confer requirements7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 155.93 155.93 Review local rules governing motions to dismiss7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 155.93 155.93 Review Orman’s supposed agreement, arbitration clause(s) and her erroneous legal statements re arbitration law7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Prepare materials for C. Bales’ review7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 155.93 155.93 Telephone conference with C. Bales (Phoenix) re nature of claims, entry of appearance and probable motion practice7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Telephone call from research department re checking on parties and their affiliations7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to research department re checking on parties and their affiliations7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 155.93 155.93 Review amended pleadings cover materials, and email G. Wallace re filing being in wrong forum7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review docket and email G. Wallace re pulling down more recent pleadings7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 103.95 Review materials re Ormans, USPS receipts and notary public that G. Wallace forwarded, and email her re CitiMortgage's service addresses7/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.40 207.90 207.90 Telephone conference with G. Wallace re background for case and likely opposition points Redacted7/30/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.40 94.80 94.80 Telephone call with D. Petrie re case background, and upcoming deadlines and issues in the case7/30/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.50 355.50 355.50 Evaluate potential arguments for dismissal of suit, including that there was no mutual assent to the arbitration agreement7/30/2019 Steven L. Johnson 0.60 54.00 54.00 Download requested filings from PACER; send filings to G. Wallace7/31/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review research & intelligence center materials on Ormans and the two churches referenced in association with them7/31/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Prepare entry of appearance, and email C. Bales re jurisdictional reservations in it and timing for filing7/31/2019 Chase A. Bales 2.40 568.80 568.80 Continued analysis of potential arguments for dismissal of suit based on allegations in plaintiff's demand7/31/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.60 142.20 142.20 Revise and file notice of appearance and transmit same to G. Wallace and P. Allen8/1/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.70 165.90 165.90 Review and evaluate authorities concerning potential arguments that case is subject to dismissal based on lack of an enforceable contract8/2/2019 Erica M. Nantais 0.10 15.00 0.00 Other: assist paralegal S. Johnson with obtaining access to McAfee encrypted CMI data on disk This portion of the fee is waived by request of Respondents. Do8/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Conference with M. Morr re background for and nature of arbitration claim, and process to confirm8/5/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.20 284.40 284.40 Review and evaluate authorities concerning change of venue issues associated with arbitration provision in connection with drafting motion to change venue8/5/2019 Chase A. Bales 4.60 1,090.20 1,090.20 Analyze and evaluate authorities concerning whether arbitration provision may be enforced where party did not agree to it in connection with drafting motion to vacate8/6/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to C. Bales re proposed challenges to effort to confirm arbitration award, and forward same to G. Wallace8/6/2019 Chase A. Bales 7.30 1,730.10 1,730.10 Prepare draft motion to vacate or, alternatively to change venue8/7/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.20 284.40 284.40 Draft motion to vacate arbitration award8/8/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98

Telephone call from C. Bales and review his emails re his telephone conference with Orman’s counsel and supposed service on CMI on July 24, and forward service information to G. Wallace and P. Allen

8/8/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 103.95 Review Pennsylvania background materials that G. Wallace forwarded8/8/2019 Chase A. Bales 4.20 995.40 995.40 Prepare motion to vacate arbitration award8/8/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 47.40 47.40 Confer with D. Petrie re services issues and strategy for addressing time for filing responsive pleading8/8/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.30 71.10 71.10 Evaluate procedural issues associated with securing an extension of time to file and answer or other responsive pleading8/8/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.30 71.10 71.10 Confer with plaintiff's counsel re status of service and basis for filing action8/9/2019 Chase A. Bales 3.80 900.60 900.60 Further revisions to draft motion to vacate, specifically focusing on developing further argument regarding basis for change of venue under 9 U.S.C. section 98/10/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 1.00 519.75 519.75 Review, revise and comment on C. Bales' draft motion to dismiss petition to confirm arbitration award8/10/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.30 71.10 71.10 Review edits to draft motion to vacate forwarded by D. Petrie8/12/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.90 450.30 450.30 Revise draft motion to vacate and incorporate further edits based on comments from D. Petrie8/13/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 1.10 571.73 571.73 Review and comment on revised motion to dismiss from C. Bales8/13/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Exchange emails with C. Bales re timing of response to motion to confirm award, and contacts with opposing counsel re extension of time to respond8/13/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.10 23.70 23.70 Place telephone call to and leave message for counsel for plaintiff re possible extension of time to respond8/13/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.30 71.10 71.10 Email correspondence with D. Petrie re service issues and potential concerns re time for filing a responsive motion8/13/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.40 331.80 331.80 Further revisions to draft of motion to vacate, and send same to G. Wallace and P. Allen for review

8/14/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review P. Allen and C. Bales emails re meet-and-confer and service of notice

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 15 of 19
Work Date Timekeeper Name Hours Worked Work Value Court adjusted Narrative

8/14/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to C. Bales’ update on meet and confer with Orman’s counsel8/14/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 47.40 47.40 Attention to email correspondence concerning filing motion to vacate and status of service8/15/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 155.93 155.93 Final review and comments on draft motion to dismiss, and telephone conference with C. Bales re finalizing same8/15/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 47.40 47.40 Telephone call with D. Petrie re final edits to motion to vacate and finalize same for submission8/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review Orman’s response and motion to strike8/30/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.30 71.10 71.10 Telephone call with Orman's counsel re status of filing and his planned withdrawal as counsel8/30/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.60 142.20 142.20 Review Orman's motion to strike9/3/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to docketing and C. Bales re reply to Orman’s document challenging motion to dismiss9/4/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.90 213.30 213.30 Prepare reply in support of motion to vacate9/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Skim/review Orman’s supplement to motion to strike9/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review Orman’s special action and request for attorneys’ fees9/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review Judge Lanza’s order denying Orman's motion to strike9/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 155.93 155.93 Review, revise and comment on draft reply in further support of motion to dismiss9/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Skim/Review Orman’s supplemental filing and email G. Wallace re same9/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review motion to withdraw as counsel, and C. Bales’ emails re filing reply and metadata issues Orman raises9/5/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 47.40 47.40 Prrepare draft motion to strike Orman's supplemental response9/5/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.30 71.10 71.10 Revise draft reply in support of motion to vacate9/5/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 47.40 47.40 Review emails from D. Petrie re reply in support of motion to vacate9/5/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.10 23.70 23.70 Review email correspondence concerning loan modification9/6/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and revise proposed final revised CMI stand-alone reply, and authorize same for filing9/6/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to C. Bales re revising draft response to accommodate the court’s order and G. Wallace’s comments9/6/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.40 94.80 94.80 Revise draft reply in support of motion to vacate (.4)9/6/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 47.40 47.40 Prepare email to D. Petrie re strategy for addressing court's order9/6/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 47.40 47.40 Review order from court re various filings and evaluate impact of same on reply in support of motion to vacate9/6/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.40 94.80 94.80 Review pro hac admission instructions and prepare drafts of application for D. Petrie9/9/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.50 355.50 355.50 Prepare reply in support of motion to vVacate to address additional arguments raised in Orman's supplemental response9/11/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 103.95 Review Orman’s most recent filing, circulate to client, and email C. Bales and M. Morr re potential terse responses and new facts she discloses9/17/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.40 94.80 94.80 Prepare outline of response to Orman's motion for summary judgment and send same to D. Petrie9/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.40 207.90 207.90 Review Philadelphia office draft opposition filed in Pennsylvania appeal, and email to C. Bales and M. Morr re incorporating same9/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 103.95 Review J. Claridge’s response to motion for sanctions and his email asking for withdrawal, and prepare reply points to both for C. Bales to use9/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to C. Bales re outline of issues and positions for response to papers the court has deemed an Orman motion for summary judgment9/18/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.10 23.70 23.70 Review response to motion for sanctions9/19/2019 Chase A. Bales 2.40 568.80 568.80 Prepare response to Orman's motion for summary judgment9/23/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.40 331.80 331.80 Continue preparing response to Orman's motion for summary judgment9/24/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.70 402.90 402.90 Continue drafting response to motion for summary judgment9/25/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review Orman’s motion to reconsider and affidavit in support9/25/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.30 308.10 308.10 Prepare controverting statement of facts and affidavit for G. Wallace9/25/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.90 213.30 213.30 Revise response to Orman's motion for summary judgment9/26/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.40 207.90 207.90 Review, revise and comment on draft G. Wallace affidavit9/26/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 155.93 155.93 Review, revise and comment on draft statement of disputed facts9/26/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.40 207.90 207.90 Review, revise and comment on draft response to what the Court has deemed is Orman's motion for summary judgment9/27/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.60 142.20 142.20 Revise draft of papers relating to response to Orman's motion for summary judgment based on comments and questions from D. Petrie9/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 0.00 0.00 Review G. Wallace/C. Bales exchange over signatory to affidavit in support of MSJ response (no charge)9/29/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.40 94.80 94.80 Review email from G. Wallace re affidavit; assemble and send exhibits to G. Wallace; prepare email to G. Wallace re affidavit issues9/30/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.50 118.50 118.50 Finalize drafts associated with response to motion for summary judgment; prepare draft motion for extension of time re same; contact Orman re extension10/1/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review Orman emailed consent and proposed supplemental pleading10/1/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.10 23.70 23.70 Prepare supplement to motion for extension of time based on email from Orman10/2/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review Orman’s motion for sanctions10/2/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review and respond to C. Bales' outline of proposed response points to motion for sanctions10/2/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.90 213.30 213.30 Review Orman's motion for sanctions and prepare outline for responding to same10/3/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.50 118.50 118.50 Revise draft response to Orman's motion for summary judgment10/4/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.80 189.60 189.60 Finalize response to Orman's motion for summary judgment10/9/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.40 331.80 331.80 Draft response to Orman's motion for sanctions10/10/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 103.95 Review, revise and comment on draft opposition to motion for sanctions10/10/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.30 308.10 308.10 Continue drafting response to Orman's motion for sanctions10/15/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review C. Bales’ proposed changes to finalize opposition to motion for sanctions, and email him re same10/15/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.60 142.20 142.20 Finalize response to motion for sanctions and oversee filing of same

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 16 of 19
Work Date Timekeeper Name Hours Worked Work Value Court adjusted Narrative

10/16/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review C. Bales' report on miscited case authority on which Orman erroneously relies, and skim cases cited10/16/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.50 118.50 118.50 Review Orman's reply in support of motion for summary judgment and evaluate authorities cited in support of same10/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review Orman’s reply in support of motion for summary judgment and select cases on which she relies10/23/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 47.40 47.40 Review Orman's reply in support of motion for attorneys' fees11/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 51.98 Review Orman’s reply in support of motion for sanctions and two affidavits she filed with it12/16/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Review LR 54.2 to which Judge Lanza referred for requirements of itemized fee statement Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/16/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 0.00 Review Judge Lanza’s order Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/16/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Exchange emails with G. Wallace re timeline for post-judgment actions Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/16/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Review and forward court order re dismissal and award of fees; conference with C. Snider re preparing fee application Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/17/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Review J. Andrews’ comments re next steps to comply with Judge Lanza’s order Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/17/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 0.00 0.00 Telephone conference with J. Andrews re background for disputes and assistance needed with filing for fees and costs (No Charge) Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/17/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Email C. Snider and Phoenix senior lawyers re market rate information for Phoenix attorneys’ fees Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.10 30.00 0.00 Send e-mail to A. Petrie re: attorney fees spreadsheet required by Local Rule 54.2 Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Review court order granting sanctions and analyze what is required for submission of attorneys fees Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 90.00 Draft and file notice of substitution of counsel12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Research requirement for attorneys fees spreadsheet under Local Rule 54.2 Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.20 60.00 0.00 Telephone conference with A. Petrie to discuss case background and assignment Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Review client materials and J. Andrews' email re submission due December 30 for fees and costs Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Telephone call from J. Andrews re materials needed for fee application and email P. Allen re engagement letter Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/18/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Research requirements for meet and confer requirement and supporting affidavits under Local Rule 54.2 Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/18/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.10 30.00 0.00 Telephone conference with A. Petrie re: requirements for supporting documentation for fees spreadsheet under Local Rule 54.2 Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/18/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.70 210.00 0.00 Draft notice to court of supporting documents required by Local Rule 54.2 in support of attorneys fees Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/19/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Draft affidavit in support of attorneys fees Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/20/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 0.00 0.00 Exchange emails with P. Allen re backup for motion for fees and costs, and conference with D. Dethlefs re signed engagement letter (No Charge) Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/20/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.50 150.00 0.00 Draft affidavit in support of attorneys fees, email combined documents to A. Petrie for filing Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/21/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Review and respond to J. Andrews re proposed paperwork in support of fees to be awarded Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/26/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 0.00 0.00 Review ALM reports on average hourly rates by region and state (No Charge) Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/26/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 0.00 Prepare A. Petrie affidavit in support of motion for fees and costs Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/27/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Review statements and prepare redacted CMI bills to submit with motion for fees as per Judge Lanza’s December 16 order Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/27/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Review and forward to client reps J. Claridge’s counteroffer re fees he owes Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/27/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 0.00 Prepare email to L. Orman and J. Claridge re meet-and-confer over amounts owed through November 30, and December time and expenses Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/27/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Tally up amounts owed through November 30 and email billing re preparing demand bill for December time and expenses Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/27/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Revise attorneys' fees affidavit sections on lawyer experience and rates Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/28/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Review and forward on to client reps J. Claridge’s response re meet-and-confer, and review G. Wallace’s response Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees

12/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 103.95 0.00 Prepare revised affidavit in support of motion for fees Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees12/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 51.98 0.00 Prepare emailed response declining J. Claridge’s settlement offer, addressing erroneous statements he made, and demanding his fee agreement Deleted pursuant to order's analysis re: authority fees-on-fees

Total Requested Fees: $20,998.71

Total Awarded Fees: 18,962.17

Difference $2,036.54

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 17 of 19
Work Date Timekeeper Name Hours Worked Work Value Court Adjusted Narrative

8/22/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 66.50 51.98 Telephone conference with J. Scoliard re additional facts for Cendant’s opposition application to confirm award Adjusted to reflect reason8/26/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 2.60 1,729.00 1,351.35

Prepare draft motion to dismiss based on CMI template and different fact for Cenlar (1.4); review Cenlar correspondence and documents that J. Scoliard forwarded (.3); prepare cover email to J. Scoliard re draft and factual support for same (.1); exchange emails with C. Bales re additional research in support of motion to dismiss (.1); review client comments re draft motion to vacate and dismiss (.2); prepare revised version incorporating same and adding note re Redacted (.3); review C. Bales’ additional 

revisions (.2)

Adjusted to reflect reason

8/26/2019 Chase A. Bales 2.30 966.00 690.00 Analyze authorities pertaining to vacating arbitration award on basis of fraud and update motion to vacate based on same Adjusted to reflect reason8/26/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.30 126.00 90.00 Review draft motion to vacate or dismiss, and send follow up email to D. Petrie re same Adjusted to reflect reason8/27/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.50 630.00 450.00 Finalize motion to vacate and notice of appearance, and facilitate filing of same Adjusted to reflect reason8/30/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 133.00 103.95 Review Orman’s response and motion to strike Adjusted to reflect reason9/4/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.90 378.00 270.00 Prepare reply in support of motion to vacate Adjusted to reflect reason9/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.90 598.50 467.78

Skim/Review Orman’s supplemental filing and email J. Scoliard re same (.1); review, revise and comment on draft reply in further support of motion to dismiss (.3); review emails with Cenlar and CMI re whether there was an offer of a loan modification made to Orman (.1); review motion to withdraw as counsel and C. Bales’ emails re filing reply and metadata issues Orman raises (.1); review Judge Lanza’s order denying Ormans' motion to strike (.1); review Orman’s special action and request for attorneys’ fees (.1); skim/review Orman’s supplement to motion to strike (.1)

Adjusted to reflect reason

9/5/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.80 336.00 240.00

Review email correspondence concerning loan modification (.1); review emails from D. Petrie re reply in support of motion to vacate (.2); revise draft reply in support of motion to vacated (.3); prepare draft motion to strike Orman's supplemental response (.2)

Adjusted to reflect reason

9/6/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.80 336.00 240.00

Review order from court re various filings and evaluate impact of same on reply in support of motion to vacate (.2); prepare email to D. Petrie re strategy for addressing court's order (.2); revise draft reply in support of motion to vacate (.4)

Adjusted to reflect reason

9/9/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.50 630.00 450.00 Prepare reply in support of motion to vacate to address additional arguments raised in Orman's supplemental response Adjusted to reflect reason9/10/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 199.50 155.93 Review, revise and comment on draft reply in further support of motion to dismiss Adjusted to reflect reason9/10/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.50 210.00 150.00 Revise reply in support of motion to vacate based on question and comments from D. Petrie Adjusted to reflect reason9/11/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 133.00 103.95 Review Orman’s most recent filing, circulate to client, and email C. Bales and M. Morr re potential terse responses and new facts she discloses Adjusted to reflect reason9/13/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 66.50 51.98

Exchange emails with C. Bales re responding to Orman's most recent unauthorized filing and her motion for sanctions, and the Judge's ruling directing that he will treat her filings as a motion for summary judgment

Adjusted to reflect reason

9/17/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.40 168.00 120.00 Prepare outline of response to Orman's motion for summary judgment and send same to D. Petrie Adjusted to reflect reason9/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 199.50 155.93

Review and respond to C. Bales re outline of issues and positions for response to papers the court has deemed an Orman motion for summary judgment (.1); review J. Claridge’s response to motion or sanctions and his email asking for withdrawal, and prepare reply points to both (.2)

Adjusted to reflect reason

9/18/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.10 42.00 30.00 Review response to motion for sanctions Adjusted to reflect reason9/19/2019 Chase A. Bales 2.40 1,008.00 720.00 Prepare response to Orman's motion for summary judgment Adjusted to reflect reason9/23/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.40 588.00 420.00 Continue preparing response to Orman's motion for summary judgment Adjusted to reflect reason9/24/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.70 714.00 510.00 Continue drafting response to motion for summary judgment Adjusted to reflect reason9/25/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 66.50 51.98 Review Orman’s motion to reconsider and affidavit in support Adjusted to reflect reason9/25/2019 Chase A. Bales 2.20 924.00 660.00 Revise response to Orman's motion for summary judgment (.9); prepare controverting statement of facts and affidavit for J. Scoliard (1.3) Adjusted to reflect reason9/26/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 1.00 665.00 519.75

Review, revise and comment on draft response to what the Court has deemed is Orman’s motion for summary judgment (.3); review, revise and comment on draft statement of disputed facts (.3); review, revise and comment on draft J. Scoliard affidavit (.4)

Adjusted to reflect reason

9/27/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.60 252.00 180.00 Revise draft of papers relating to response to Orman's motion for summary judgment based on comments and questions from D. Petrie Adjusted to reflect reason9/30/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 84.00 60.00 Prepare follow-up email to J. Scoliard re response to Orman's motion for summary judgment and assemble exhibits for affidavit in support of same Adjusted to reflect reason9/30/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.50 210.00 150.00 Finalize drafts associated with response to motion for summary judgment; prepare draft motion for extension of time re same; contact Plaintiff re extension Adjusted to reflect reason10/1/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.10 42.00 30.00 Prepare supplement to motion for extension of time based on email from Orman Adjusted to reflect reason

1

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 18 of 19
Work Date Timekeeper Name Hours Worked Work Value Court Adjusted Narrative

10/2/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 133.00 103.95 Review Orman’s motion for sanctions (.1); review and respond to C. Bales' outline of proposed response points (.1) Adjusted to reflect reason10/2/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.90 378.00 270.00 Review Orman's motion for sanctions and prepare outline for responding to same Adjusted to reflect reason10/3/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.50 210.00 150.00 Revise draft response to Orman's motion for summary judgment Adjusted to reflect reason10/4/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.80 336.00 240.00 Finalize response to Orman's motion for summary judgment Adjusted to reflect reason10/9/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.40 588.00 420.00 Draft response to Orman's motion for sanctions Adjusted to reflect reason10/10/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 133.00 103.95 Review, revise and comment on draft opposition to motion for sanctions Adjusted to reflect reason10/10/2019 Chase A. Bales 1.30 546.00 390.00 Continue drafting response to Orman's motion for sanctions Adjusted to reflect reason10/15/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.60 252.00 180.00 Finalize response to motion for sanctions and oversee filing of same Adjusted to reflect reason10/16/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 66.50 51.98 Review C. Bales' report on miscited case authority on which Orman relies, and skim cases cited Adjusted to reflect reason10/16/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.50 210.00 150.00 Review Orman's reply in support of motion for summary judgment and evaluate authorities she cited in support of same Adjusted to reflect reason10/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 66.50 51.98 Review Orman’s reply in support of motion for summary judgment and select cases on which she relies Adjusted to reflect reason10/23/2019 Chase A. Bales 0.20 84.00 60.00 Review Orman's reply in support of motion for attorneys' fees Adjusted to reflect reason11/5/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 66.50 51.98 Review Orman’s reply in support of motion for sanctions and two affidavits she filed with it Adjusted to reflect reason12/16/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.40 266.00 0.00

Review and forward court order re dismissal and award of fees; conference with C. Snider re preparing fee application (.3); review LR 54.2 to which Judge Lanza referred for requirements of itemized fee statement (.1)

Deleted pursuant to order

12/16/2019 Christine T. Snider 0.30 75.00 0.00 Review Court order and Rule 54.2(e)(1) re preparing supporting documentation to Motion for Award of Attorneys Fees Deleted pursuant to order12/17/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 0.00 0.00 Telephone conference with J. Andrews re background for disputes and assistance needed with filing for fees and costs (No Charge) Deleted pursuant to order12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.10 30.00 0.00 Send e-mail to A. Petrie re: attorney fees spreadsheet required by Local Rule 54.2 Deleted pursuant to order12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.20 60.00 0.00 Telephone conference with A. Petrie to discuss case background and assignment Deleted pursuant to order12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Review court order granting sanctions and analyze what is required for submission of attorneys fees Deleted pursuant to order12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Research requirement for attorneys fees spreadsheet under Local Rule 54.2 Deleted pursuant to order12/17/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 90.00 Draft and file notice of substitution of counsel12/18/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.10 66.50 0.00 Telephone call from J. Andrews re materials needed for fee application and locate engagement letter agreement for same Deleted pursuant to order12/18/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.70 210.00 0.00 Draft notice to court of supporting documents required by Local Rule 54.2 in support of attorneys fees Deleted pursuant to order12/18/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Research requirements for meet and confer requirement and supporting affidavits under Local Rule 54.2 Deleted pursuant to order12/18/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.10 30.00 0.00 Telephone conference with A. Petrie re: requirements for supporting documentation for fees spreadsheet under Local Rule 54.2 Deleted pursuant to order12/19/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Draft affidavit in support of attorneys fees Deleted pursuant to order12/20/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.50 150.00 0.00 Draft affidavit in support of attorneys fees, email combined documents to A. Petrie for filing Deleted pursuant to order12/20/2019 Patricia Wellinger 2.00 460.00 0.00 Research attorney billing rates in Phoenix, Arizona from 2016 to current for C. Snider Deleted pursuant to order12/26/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.20 133.00 0.00 Prepare A. Petrie affidavit in support of motion for fees and costs Deleted pursuant to order12/27/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.40 266.00 0.00

Tally up amounts owed through November 30 and email billing re preparing demand bill for December time and expenses (.1); prepare email to L. Orman and J. Claridge re meetand-confer over amounts owed through November 30, and December time and expenses (.2); review statements and prepare redacted Cenlar bills to submit with motion for fees as per Judge Lanza’s December 16 order (.1)

Deleted pursuant to order

12/27/2019 Jillian L. Andrews 0.30 90.00 0.00 Revise attorneys' fees affidavit sections on lawyer experience and rates Deleted pursuant to order12/29/2019 Andrew J. Petrie 0.30 199.50 0.00

Prepare emailed response declining J. Claridge’s settlement offer, addressing erroneous statements he made, and demanding his fee agreement (.1); prepare revised affidavit in support of motion for fees (.2)

Deleted pursuant to order

Total Fees Requested: $17,056.50

Total Fees Approved: 10,788.38

Difference $6,268.13

2

Case 2:19-cv-04756-DWL Document 54 Filed 02/26/20 Page 19 of 19