Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02203/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-02203-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB

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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

San Francisco Division 

GABRIEL GONZALEZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROY P. MACHADO, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 17-cv-02203-LB 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART THE PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES 

Re: ECF No. 85 

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Gabriel Gonzalez, who has physical disabilities, cannot walk, and uses a wheelchair 

for mobility, sued the defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 

(“ADA”) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act after he visited their taqueria and was unable to sit at a 

table because the table legs did not “allow for the proper toe clearance.”1

 The parties settled the 

case.2 The damages settlement was $6,000.3 The parties did not settle the fees (although on March 

25, 2019, the defendants’ counsel offered $18,000 for fees, and the plaintiff accepted the offer on 

 

1

 Compl. – ECF No. 1 at 1-3 (¶¶ 1–5, 13). Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File 

(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents. 

2

 Notice of Settlement – ECF No. 80 at 1. 

3

 Opp. – ECF No. 87 at 2. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 1 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

April 1, 2019).4 The deal apparently was not consummated, and the plaintiff moved for $39,565 in 

fees and $1,260 in costs for a total of $40,825.5 The defendants oppose the fees as unreasonable on 

the grounds that (1) seven attorneys expending 70.1 hours on a non-complex case with no 

discovery is excessive (contrasting his own fees of $5,000), and (2) the hourly rates are excessive.6

The court can decide the motion without oral argument. N.D. Cal. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). The court 

awards $18,787.50 in fees and $1,260 in costs. 

STATEMENT 

1. Relevant Procedural History 

The plaintiff filed the complaint on April 20, 2017.7 The defendants answered on May 15, 

2017.8 On August 11, 2017, the parties conducted a joint-site inspection, and the parties thereafter 

filed a notice for need of mediation on September 22, 2017.9 A pre-mediation phone conference 

was held on November 21, 2017.10 On December 19, 2017, the parties filed a joint notice that the 

case had settled and they would file a stipulated dismissal within sixty days.11 They did not file 

it.12 

On March 19, 2018, the plaintiff reported that “[d]espite due diligence by [the] Plaintiff, 

signatures on the settlement documents and funding of the settlement remain outstanding from 

[the] Defendant.”13 Defense counsel did not appear at the March 29 case-management conference, 

 

4

 Emails – ECF No. 85-8 at 3. 

5

 Billing Records – ECF No. 85-4 at 1. 

6

 Opp. – ECF No. 87 at 1-2. 

7

 Compl. – ECF No. 1. 

8

 Answer – ECF No. 8. 

9

 Joint Case-Management Statement – ECF No. 40 at 6; Notice – ECF No. 19 at 1. 

10 ADR Remark – ECF No. 24. 

11 Joint Notice of Settlement – ECF No. 25 at 2. 

12 Clerk’s Notice – ECF No. 27. 

13 Joint Status Report – ECF No. 28 at 2. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 2 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

and the court ordered the defendants to show cause why the settlement documents had not been 

finalized and set a hearing for April 19, 2018.14 

On April 19, defense counsel reported that he had lost contact with his clients.15 The court set 

a further case-management conference for May 31, 2018 and directed the parties to submit a joint 

update before the conference.16 On May 17, 2018, the parties filed a joint case-management 

statement that did not clarify whether defense counsel had regained contact with his clients.17 The 

court asked for a further joint update by May 21, 2018,18 and on that date, the plaintiff reported 

that he had tried to contact defense counsel and received no response.19 The court issued another 

order to show cause “why the settlement agreement has not been signed, why the agreed-upon 

settlement consideration has not been delivered, and why the court should not strike the 

defendants’ answer.”20 On June 4, 2018, the defendants responded that they did not have the 

money to pay the plaintiff’s settlement demand, asked for a trial date, and asked for an early 

settlement conference or mediation where the parties might settle on a payment plan.”21

On June 11, 2018, the court referred the case for a settlement conference.22 The settlement 

judge had two scheduling calls with the parties on July 18, 2018 and August 3, 2018, set an inperson settlement conference for September 21, 2018, and ordered the parties to lodge settlement 

statements by September 11, 2018.23 The defendants did not file their statement, and on September 

13, 2018, the settlement judge ordered them to do so by 9 a.m. the next day.24 When they did not, 

 

14 Minute Entry – ECF No. 34. 

15 Minute Entry – ECF No. 38. 

16 Id.; Clerk’s Notice – ECF No. 39. 

17 Joint Case-Management Statement – ECF No. 40; Clerk’s Notice – ECF No. 41. 

18 Clerk’s Notice – ECF No. 41. 

19 Status Report – ECF No. 42 at 1. 

20 Order to Show Cause – ECF No. 43 at 2. 

21 Response to Order to Show Cause – ECF No. 47 at 1–2. 

22 Order Referring Case – ECF No. 52. 

23 Minute Entry – ECF No. 57; Minute Entry – ECF No. 59. 

24 Order – ECF No. 60. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 3 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

she vacated the settlement conference and ordered the parties to schedule a new date.25 On 

September 23, 2019, the undersigned ordered the parties to contact the settlement judge to 

schedule a new date.26 They ultimately had a settlement conference on March 8, 2019, where the 

case settled (except for fees). 27 

2. Facts Relevant to Attorney’s Fees Motion 

2.1 The Parties’ Settlement Discussions 

On May 17, 2019, the plaintiff reported that he had “been in an extended [meet and confer] 

process with counsel for Defendants, Michael Welch, where it was believed that an agreement had 

been reached on the planned motion for attorney’s fees. However, this agreement has fallen 

through as it appears that counsel for Defendant never had authority to convey the offer that was 

accepted.”28 In an e-mail exchange, the defense counsel suggested an $18,000 settlement for fees 

on March 25, 2019, and the plaintiff accepted that amount on April 1, 2019.29 By April 23, 2019, 

defense counsel responded that the defendants were “trying to figure out how to divide it.”30 On 

May 22, 2019, the plaintiff filed the fees motion, and on June 5, 2019, the defendants opposed it.31 

2.2 Attorneys, Billing Records, Requested Hourly Rates, and Requested Hours 

The following chart summarizes the hourly rates and hours billed by twelve attorneys.32 

 

25 Order – ECF No. 61. 

26 9/23/2018 Docket Entry. 

27 Clerk’s Notice – ECF No. 62; Order Granting Stipulation – ECF No. 67; Minute Entry – ECF No. 

79; Notice of Settlement – ECF No. 80. 

28 Status Update – ECF No. 82 at 1. 

29 E-mails – ECF 85-8 at 3. 

30 Id. at 1 

31 Mot. – ECF No. 85-1; Opp. – ECF No. 87. 

32 Billing Records – ECF No. 85-4 at 1–19. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 4 of 13
Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 5 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Russell Handy “graduated Magna Cum Laude from California Western, has taught as an 

adjunct professor, has clerked for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and has devoted his private 

practice to disability litigation for the last 19 years.”36 He has prosecuted over one thousand ADA 

cases, over forty trials, has been named one of San Diego’s “Top Attorneys” by a local periodical, 

received an award for his disability work, and has appeared on the news as an ADA expert.37

Phyl Grace has been practicing law for over twenty-two years, focusing on disability issues for 

ten.38 She has litigated hundreds of civil-rights cases and has substantial litigation experience.39 

Mary Melton graduated from the UC Davis School of Law in 1992, has been licensed to 

practice for twenty-four years, and has significant litigation experience in several areas of law.40 

Dennis Price graduated from Loyola Law School in 2011, clerked for the California Court of 

Appeal, and worked for a large non-profit firm before joining Potter Handy.41 He has been 

involved in litigating hundreds of disability-rights cases.42 

Chris Carson graduated from California Western School of Law in 2011, where she was a 

writer and editor for two journals, and she has litigated disability-access cases for more than five 

years.43 

Amanda Seabock graduated from California Western School of Law in 2011, where she served 

as a representative to the Student Bar Association and participated in various other activities.44 She 

 

36 Id. at 2–3 (¶ 7). 

37 Id. at 3 (¶ 7). 

38 Id. (¶ 8). 

39 Id.

40 Id. (¶ 9). 

41 Id. at 4 (¶ 10). 

42 Id. 

43 Id. (¶ 11). 

44 Id. at 4–5 (¶ 12). The billing records are under two last names: Seabock and Lockhart. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 6 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

joined Potter Handy in 2012 first as an intern and then as an attorney.45 She began overseeing the 

firm’s disability-rights cases in California’s Northern District in 2018.46

Isabel Masanque graduated cum laude from California Western School of Law in 2012, where 

she was a writer and editor for two of the school’s journals.47 She interned for the San Diego 

Public Defender’s Office and began her career at the Center for Disability Access in 2012 first as 

an intern and then as an attorney after her admission to the bar in 2013.48 

Khushpreet Mehton graduated from California Western School of Law in 2010 and has 

litigated hundreds of civil-rights cases throughout California since 2011.49 He has tried two Title 

III cases in the Central and Southern Districts of California.50 

Sara Gunderson graduated from California Western School of Law in 2013, where she 

participated in a number of school clubs and activities.51 She has worked exclusively on disabilitycivil-rights cases for the last two years.52 

Prathima Reddy Price graduated from Case Western Reserve University School of Law and 

has litigated various civil-rights cases.53 She obtained “one of the highest settlements in the history 

of New York State” in a suit against the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.54 

 

45 Id. 

46 Id.

47 Id. at 5–6 (¶ 13). 

48 Id. 

49 Id. at 6 (¶ 14). 

50 Id.

51 Id. (¶ 15). 

52 Id.

53 Id. at 7 (¶ 16). 

54 Id.

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 7 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Farrell Goodman graduated from Pepperdine University School of Law in 1985 and has 

substantial civil-litigation experience, including jury and bench trials.55 He has been a mediator 

and arbitrator in Ohio, and (as a solo practitioner) was outside counsel for several corporations.56 

Mr. Potter stated that because his practice relies on billing at a market rate, he has “extensive 

experience with respect to what attorneys specializing in disability law and civil rights bill for civil 

litigation and what courts are routinely awarding and can attest that the rates billed by the Center 

for Disability Access for its attorneys are well within market rates.”57

ANALYSIS 

1. Legal Standards 

The federal and state statutes authorize fees for the claims in the complaint. In an ADA case, a 

district court has the discretion to award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees. 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12205. “The Supreme Court has explained that, in civil rights cases, the district court’s 

discretion is limited. A prevailing plaintiff under the ADA should ordinarily recover an attorney’s 

fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Jankey v. Poop Deck, 537 

F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Unruh Act 

allows for attorney’s fees as “may be determined by the court.” Cal. Civ. Code § 52. 

“A reasonable fee is a fee that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the 

representation of a meritorious civil rights case. The district court must strike a balance between 

granting sufficient fees to attract qualified counsel to civil rights cases and avoiding a windfall to 

counsel. The way to do so is to compensate counsel at the prevailing rate in the community for 

similar work; no more, no less.” Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 

2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

 

55 Id. (¶ 17). 

56 Id. 

57 Id. at 8 (¶ 19). 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 8 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

California state and federal courts use the lodestar method to determine a reasonable fee 

award.58 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Jordan v. Multnomah Cnty., 815 F.2d 

1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1987); Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1131 (2001). “The ‘lodestar’ is 

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

litigation by a reasonable hourly rate.” Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 (9th Cir. 

1996). The next two sections address the hourly rates and the hours billed. 

1.1 Hourly Rates 

The defendants ask the court to reduce the rates “to the hourly rate established in this 

District.”59 The court follows the weight of authority in this district and reduces the hourly rates. 

The district court must determine a reasonable hourly rate based on the “experience, skill, and 

reputation of the attorney requesting fees.” Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210 

(9th Cir. 1986). This task is “inherently difficult.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). 

To assist with the determination, the court looks to “the rate prevailing in the community for 

similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Chalmers, 

796 F.2d at 1210-11. This community is typically that in which the district court sits. Schwarz v. 

Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895, 906 (9th Cir. 1995). The burden is on the fee 

applicant to show his or her fee is in line with prevailing market rates. Blum, 465 U.S. at 895 n.11. 

“Affidavits of the plaintiffs’ attorney and other attorneys regarding prevailing fees in the 

community, and rate determinations in other cases, particularly those setting a rate for the 

plaintiffs’ attorney, are satisfactory evidence of the prevailing market rate.” United Steelworkers of 

Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Widrig v. Apfel, 140 F.3d 

1207, 1209-10 (9th Cir. 1998) (declarations by attorneys regarding the prevailing market rate in 

the community may be enough to establish a reasonable rate in the market). In some cases, the 

court may look outside of the forum community for rates if local counsel is unavailable “either 

 

58 As “California law is materially similar to federal law in determining the reasonableness of 

attorneys’ fees[,]” this order cites federal law. Malem Med., Ltd. v. Theos Med. Sys., Inc., No. 13–cv–

05236–EMC, 2017 WL 5153300, at n.1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017). 

59 Opp. – ECF No. 87 at 2. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 9 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

because they are unwilling or unable to perform because they lack the degree of experience, 

expertise, or specialization required to handle properly the case.” Gates v. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d 

1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1992) (following other circuit courts). 

The court reduces the hourly rate for Mark Potter, Russell Handy, and Phyl Grace from $650 

to $425, which is the rate awarded by other courts in this district.60 In a recent Northern District 

case involving the lack of accessible parking, the court — invoking other cases — awarded each 

$425 per hour. See Johnson v. Autozone, Inc., No. 17-cv-02941-PJH, 2019 WL 2288111, at *6 

(N.D. Cal. May 29, 2019) (collecting cases). 

The court reduces the hourly rate for Mary Melton, Dennis Price, Isabel Masanque, Chris 

Carson, Amanda Seabock, and Khushpreet Mehton from $500 to $300, again following Johnson v. 

Autozone. Id. at *7 (collecting cases and analyzing fee awards). 

The court reduces the hourly rate for Sara Gunderson, Farrell Goodman, and Prathima Reddy 

Price from $410 to $250. See id. (collecting cases and awarding a $250 hourly rate for junior 

attorneys, including Ms. Gunderson). 

1.2 Hours Expended on Litigation 

The defendants contend that (1) the 70-plus hours in the case are excessive given the lack of 

complexity (no discovery and one site inspection) and the lawyers’ expertise, (2) the court should 

disregard the fees incurred by Mr. Potter and Mr. Handy (or at least discount their hourly rate) 

because their work “could have been easily handled by less senior attorneys in their office,” and 

(3) as a result, the court should look at the hours for the other lawyers “with suspicion.”61 The 

court already discounted the hourly rates and — on the modest two-page briefing by the 

defendants — will not reduce the rates further. It reduces the hours billed by 14.6 hours. 

The fee-seeking party bears the initial burden to prove the reasonableness of hours expended 

using detailed time records documenting completed tasks and time expended. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 

437; Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2007). The district court may 

 

60 Mot. – ECF No. 85-1 at 8–9. 

61 Opp. – ECF No. 87 at 2. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 10 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

reduce an award if the documentation is inadequate or if it finds that some of the hours were not 

reasonably expended, such as those that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” 

Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34. The opposing party then bears the burden of challenging the 

accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1397–98. This must 

be done by specifically identifying defects or deficiencies in the requested hours; conclusory or 

unsubstantiated objections are insufficient to warrant a reduction. Cancio v. Fin. Credit Network, 

Inc., No. C 04-03755 TEH, 2005 WL 1629809, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2005). The court also must 

conduct an independent review of the fees for reasonableness. McGrath v. Cnty. of Nevada, 67 

F.3d 248, 254 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). A defendant “cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to 

complain about the time necessarily spent by the plaintiff in response.” City of Riverside v. Rivera, 

477 U.S. 561, 580 n.11 (1986) (plurality opinion) (quotations and citations omitted). 

The plaintiff’s counsel provided detailed billing records. The defendants did not challenge the 

“accuracy and reasonableness of the hours charged” by specifically identifying defects or 

deficiencies in the requested hours and instead made only conclusory or unsubstantiated 

objections. Deukmejian, 987 F.2d at 1397-98. The court somewhat addressed the challenge to 

senior lawyers performing junior-lawyer tasks by reducing the hourly rate. In any event, Messieurs 

Mr. Potter and Mr. Handy “have established a process of being involved at the beginning of 

cases.”62 The billing records support this conclusion and show more involvement early in the case 

and Mr. Potter’s limited periodic review thereafter.63 The court does not second-guess the staffing 

decisions on this record. Moreno v. City of Sacramento, 534 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(“[The court] may not attempt to impose its own judgment regarding the best way to operate a law 

firm, nor to determine if different staffing decisions might have led to different fee requests.”). 

Also, the billing records show that work in the case was delegated to junior attorneys. 

The court also reviewed the hours billed for reasonableness. 

 

62 Reply – ECF No. 88 at 3. 

63 Billing Records – ECF No. 85-4 at 1–19. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 11 of 13
ORDER – No. 17-cv-02203-LB 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

First, the billing records frequently include time entries for 0.1 hours. “Although a one-tenth 

hour timekeeping practice is generally reasonable and [a] careful review of filings should be 

encouraged, billing 0.1 hours for certain practices sometimes requires a reduction.” Jacobson v. 

Persolve, LLC, No. 14-cv-00735-LHK, 2016 WL 7230873, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016) 

(internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Kalani v. Starbucks Corp., No. 13-cv-00734-LHK, 2016 

WL 379623, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb 1, 2016)). The court identified 62 billing entries, mostly for 0.1 

hours (and several for 0.2 or 0.3 hours) for Messieurs Potter and Handy for tasks that include 

telling an assistant to email a copy to the Center for Disability Access, reviewing the summons 

and the initial ADA scheduling order, reviewing the consent notice, and reviewing other 

administrative docket entries. The total hours are 6.6 hours. “While reviewing such notices takes 

some amount of time, experienced counsel must exercise billing judgment to avoid excessive 

accumulation of 0.1 hour entries in reviewing such routine documents and court communications.” 

Kalani, 2016 WL 379623, at *8. Following Jacobson and Kalani, the court reduces the hours by 

50% to 3.3 hours. Phyl Grace also repeatedly billed 0.1 and 0.2 hours (for a total of 6.6 hours) for 

telling her assistant to call or email the defense,64 and the court reduces the hours to 3.3. 

Second, the plaintiff estimated the time for the fees motion: (1) one half-hour to review the 

billing, eliminate duplicative or unreasonable fees, and redact as appropriate, (2) two hours to draft 

the fees motion, and (3) eight hours to write the reply, prepare for oral argument, and attend oral 

argument.65 The plaintiff did not submit supplemental billing records with the reply. The court is 

not holding oral argument, which eliminates that time, and also eliminates the eight hours for lack 

of a submission about the time that the tasks actually took. Autozone, 2019 WL 2288111, at *8 

(citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 (“Where the documentation of hours is inadequate, the district 

 

64 Billing Records – ECF No. 85-4 at entries 11/28/17, 12/12/17, 12/19/17, 12/27/17, 1/2/18, 1/8/18, 

1/9/18, 1/11/18, 1/16/18, 1/19/18, 1/24/18, 1/29/18, 2/2/18, 2/7/18, 2/12/18, 2/13/18, 2/16/18, 2/19/18, 

2/21/18, 2/26/18, 2/28/18, 3/5/18, 3/8/18, 3/13/18, 3/15/18, 3/20/18, 3/22/18, 3/28/18, 4/4/18, 4/5/18, 

4/6/18, 4/10/18, 4/13/18, 4/17/18, 4/18/18, 4/23/18, 4/26/18, 4/27/18, 5/1/18, 5/7/18, 5/21/18, 6/4/18, 

6/7/18, 6/13/18, 7/17/18, 7/24/18, & 7/30/18. 

65 Billing Records – ECF No. 85-4 at 19. 

Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 12 of 13
Case 3:17-cv-02203-LB Document 91 Filed 07/10/19 Page 13 of 13