Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00102/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-00102-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

GENERAL CHARLES “CHUCK”

YEAGER, (RET.), and GENERAL

CHUCK YEAGER FOUNDATION,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CONNIE BOWLIN, ED BOWLIN,

DAVID MCFARLAND, AVIATION

AUTOGRAPHS, a non-incorporated

Georgia business entity,

BOWLIN & ASSOCIATES, INC., a

Georgia corporation,

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

EAGLES, INC., an Alabama

corporation, SPALDING

SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1

through 100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

NO. CIV. 2:08-102 WBS JFM

ORDER

----oo0oo----

 Having prevailed on their motion for summary judgment (see

Docket No. 135), defendants Connie and Ed Bowlin, Aviation

Autographs, and Bowlin and Associates, Inc. now move for an award

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 162 Filed 04/26/10 Page 1 of 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

2

of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to California Civil Code

section 3344(a) and section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §

1117(a).

Under both California and federal law, determining an

award of attorney’s fees begins by calculating the “‘lodestar,’

i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the

reasonable hourly rate.” PLCM Group v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th

1084, 1095 (2000); Fisher v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119

(9th Cir. 2000) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433

(1983)). Under the lodestar method, the fee applicant must

provide “sufficient detail” of its billing such that the court

“can evaluate what lawyers were doing and the reasonableness of

the number of hours spent on those tasks.” Fitzgerald v. City of

Los Angeles, No. 03-1876, 2009 WL 960825, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr.

7, 2009) (quoting Smith v. Dist. of Columbia, 466 F. Supp. 2d

151, 158 (D.D.C. 2006); see also Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437

(holding the fee applicant should “maintain billing time records

in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identify

distinct claims”). 

In support of their motion for attorney’s fees,

defendants submit a billing statement itemizing the time counsel

spent on this matter each day, with over eighty percent of the

entries “block billed.” (See Noonan Decl. Ex. A.) Block billing

is a practice where the amount of time spent by an attorney on

each discrete task is not identified, but instead all hours spent

during the course of a day on multiple tasks are billed together. 

The California State Bar’s Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration

has concluded that block billing “hides accountability” and may

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 162 Filed 04/26/10 Page 2 of 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

3

“increase time by 10% to 30%” by lumping together tasks. See The

State Bar of California Committee on Mandatory Fee Arbitration,

Arbitration Advisory 03-01 (2003). 

More importantly, the usage of block billing is

fundamentally inconsistent with the lodestar method because it

“render[s] it virtually impossible to break down hours,” leaving

the court without the ability to accurately determine whether a

reasonable amount of time was spent by counsel on a discrete

task. Bell v. Vista Unified Sch. Dist., 82 Cal. App. 4th 672,

689 (2000); see Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[B]lock billing makes it more difficult to

determine how much time was spent on particular activities.”);

Bonner, 2008 WL 410260, at *3. Without an itemization of the

amount of time spent by the fee applicant on each discrete task

in the case, the court cannot accurately determine whether the

rates charged or hours spent by lawyers in a matter are

reasonable. An excessive amount of block billing thereby forces

the court to take a “shot in the dark” and guess whether the

hours expended were reasonable, which is precisely the opposite

of the methodical calculations the lodestar method requires. See

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. 

California courts have held that a trial court may

“exercise its discretion in assigning a reasonable percentage to

the [block billed] entries, or simply cast them aside.” Bell,

Cal. App. 4th at 689. Under federal law, however, when a court

is faced with block billing, it may not simply make across the

board reductions in fees or toss block billed hours aside. 

Rather, a district court must “provide a clear explanation” for

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 162 Filed 04/26/10 Page 3 of 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

4

why any reduction in fees “properly compensate[s] for . . .

overbilling or duplication.” Sorenson v. Mink, 239 F.3d 1140,

1146 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Welch, 480 F.3d at 948 (rejecting

an across the board reduction for block billed fees because the

court failed to adequately explain a rationale for its percentage

reduction). 

Block billing makes it virtually impossible for a court

to comply with its requirement to give a clear, reasoned

explanation for any fee reductions because those reductions would

ultimately be nothing more than guesswork based on an imprecise

billing statement. Given block billing’s inherent inconsistency

with the lodestar method, this court will not award fees for any

blocked billed entries. However, the court will give defendants

an opportunity to submit an amended billing statement that will

allow the court to determine the reasonableness of defendants’

fee request.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants shall submit an

amended motion for attorney’s fees that contains a billing

statement that does not use block billing by May 3, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall file any

opposition to this motion by May 17, 2010. Defendants may then

file any reply no later than May 24, 2010.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the April 26, 2010 hearing

on this matter be, and the same hereby is, VACATED. After the 

//

//

//

//

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 162 Filed 04/26/10 Page 4 of 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

5

aforementioned briefing schedule concludes, the court will take 

the matter under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(h). 

DATED: April 23, 2010

Case 2:08-cv-00102-WBS-CKD Document 162 Filed 04/26/10 Page 5 of 5