Opinion ID: 1390423
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Calculation of fee award.Standard of review

Text: The district court's award of $1,871,746.40 in attorneys' fees and expenses covered work performed by HMRP over a four-year period. In seeking additional fees, the Plaintiff argues that the district court should have applied the firm's then-current, 2005 rates instead of allegedly unsubstantiated historic rates from 2004. Additionally, the Plaintiff urges this Court to find that the district court's refusal to include fee-related litigation in the award and to apply a 25% enhancement for exceptional success constituted abuses of discretion. Conversely, the Shipbuilders contend that numerous hours submitted for compensation were either unrelated to the underlying FCA claim, duplicative, or wasteful, and that the district court exceeded its discretion by failing to adequately address these issues. This Court reviews a district court's award of attorneys' fees and expenses for abuse of discretion. Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 789 (6th Cir. 2004) ( citing Perotti v. Seiter, 935 F.2d 761, 763 (6th Cir.1991)). An abuse of discretion exists when the district court applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact. First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641, 647 (6th Cir.1993).