Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05931/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-05931-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\TERMED\02-5931\Amend.AttyFees.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT S. KOSLOFF,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAFÉ VASILIKI, ET AL.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 02-5931 JL

ORDER GRANTING

RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION

FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

INTRODUCTION

After this Court granted counsel for Plaintiff’s Application for Attorney’s Fees on

February 15, 2006, counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration on grounds that the Order

did not cover fees incurred after the initial motion was filed. Counsel is correct. The

Court’s file did not contain billing records for the period June 21, 2005 through the date of

the hearing on August 10, or records covering the post-hearing period. The Court has now

had an opportunity to review those records and the portion of the file pertaining to the

application for attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff’s counsel seeks an additional $11,542.00 in attorneys’ fees for the period

June 21 - August 16, 2005. Counsel for Defendant opposes the application on grounds

that it is inherently unreasonable.

Case 3:02-cv-05931-JL Document 85 Filed 05/26/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\JLALL\CHAMBERS\CASES\TERMED\02-5931\Amend.AttyFees.wpd 2

DISCUSSION

Exclusive of communications with the court and counsel, miscellaneous

administrative tasks, and preparation for and attendance at the August 10th hearing - - 

counsel has billed for nearly 30 hours in connection with the fee application. As noted

previously, counsel is very experienced in these matters. The Court notes that the

Defendant’s opposition to the fee application and, in general, the protracted resolution of

this case has caused Plaintiff’s counsel to spend a great deal of time on this case.

However, the Court finds that some of the time claimed is unreasonable. 

Accordingly, the Court deducts .7 hours for administrative tasks, such as filing and serving

documents. In addition, the Court finds that time spent on preparing the reply to

Defendant’s opposition to the original application - - 11.85 hours - - is unreasonable, and

deducts four hours from that sub-total. The reply memorandum consisted of seven pages,

discussing three cases cited by defendant, plus a four-page declaration. 

Finally, the Court finds that the 6.35 hours spent reviewing documents after the

hearing on August 10th, in order to prepare a supplemental memorandum, which counsel

requested, is also unreasonable, and the Court deducts three hours from that sub-total. 

The post-hearing declaration consisted of five pages with exhibits.

Accordingly, the Court deducts a total of 7.7 hours from the additional time claimed

for the period June 21 through August 16, 2005. At the rate of $420 an hour, Plaintiff’s

counsel is entitled to additional fees in the amount of $8308.00 for a grand total of

$91,751.00 in attorney’ fees, litigation expenses and costs

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 26, 2006 

__________________________________

 James Larson

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-05931-JL Document 85 Filed 05/26/06 Page 2 of 2