Opinion ID: 159520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amount of Fees Imposed

Text: When imposing an award under § 1927, the district court’s order “must sufficiently express the basis for the sanctions imposed to identify the excess costs reasonably incurred by the party to whom they will be due.” Braley , 832 F.2d at 1513. Mr. Losavio contends that the magistrate judge failed to make the necessary findings to support the amount of fees and excess costs awarded. -14- The Steffens defendants requested $24,191.31 in attorney fees and costs incurred defending the § 1983 action from September 5, 1996, through the date of dismissal, January 27, 1997. The Farm Credit defendants requested $10,486.63, and the State of Colorado requested $13,801.14. The Noffsker and Schoonhoven defendants requested fee awards, but these requests were denied by the court because these defendants were fully indemnified by the Steffens defendants and, thus, they had not actually incurred any fees. The magistrate judge found that the defendants’ fee requests were excessive. It noted that after Mr. Crawford recanted his testimony, defendants’ appropriately filed motions for summary judgment and responded to plaintiffs’ motions for discovery extensions and to file a second amended complaint, but that these motions and responses were routine and did not require complex legal analysis, and that the time devoted to these pleadings was excessive. The magistrate judge also found that the billing statements for each defendant group included excessive time for intraoffice and interoffice conferences, discussions and meetings, and reflected a significant duplication of effort by each group of defendants. The magistrate judge concluded that “each group of defendants could have reasonably protected its respective interests and fully defended this case from September 5, 1996 through January 27, 1997 for less than $10,000.” Appellee’s Supp. App. at 56-57. Thus, based on the magistrate judge’s findings, -15- the district court awarded $10,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs to each group of defendants. Mr. Losavio contends that the magistrate judge committed error by “picking the amount of $10,000 out of the air.” Appellant’s Br. at 22. The magistrate judge conducted a full-day evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the requested fees. The magistrate judge questioned the witnesses in detail about each of the submitted billing statements during the hearing, and gave a detailed explanation as to why it concluded the requests were unreasonable. Mr. Losavio failed to include in the record on appeal many of the billing statements that were admitted into evidence at the hearing, and reviewed and discussed by the magistrate judge. Thus, again, we are unable meaningfully to review any of the magistrate judge’s factual findings with respect to the reasonableness of the attorney fees and costs requested or ultimately awarded. We do conclude, however, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a lesser amount than requested without providing a detailed accounting. The magistrate judge noted it was unable to apportion fees more accurately than it did because of defendants’ counsels’ block billing statements. “Faced with these unreasonable figures,. . . [the] district court judge--‘recognizing, as he did, that some duplication or waste of effort had occurred--did not err in simply reducing the proposed ‘lodestar’ fee by -16- a reasonable amount without performing an item-by-item accounting.’” LaPrade v. Kidder Peabody & Co. , 146 F.3d 899, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Copeland v. Marshall , 641 F.2d 880, 903 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc)), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1071 (1999). Finally, Mr. Losavio contends that the district court failed to consider whether defendants could have mitigated their fees and costs. We disagree. Based on the magistrate judge’s findings, the district court reduced the requested attorney fees and costs incurred in defending the § 1983 action by more than $18,000 and, based on its own review of the record, disallowed all of the fees and costs that defendants had requested for pursuing the § 1927 sanctions. We find no abuse of discretion. Appellant’s motion to file a supplemental appendix is GRANTED. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court Robert H. Henry