Gross v. CitiBank NA ( 2023 )

Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 1 of 35 1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Marshall Gross, No. CV-18-02103-PHX-ROS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 CitiMortgage Incorporated, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees seeking over 16 $480,000 in fees. (Doc. 203). The billing records counsel submit reflect an astonishing 17 level of time spent on tasks. In fact, the time recorded for certain tasks is so implausible 18 that it renders the billing records, in their entirety, unreliable. Based on counsel’s decision 19 to not keep accurate billing records, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part. 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff Marshall Gross filed this suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act alleging 22 CitiMortgage Incorporated (“Citi”) failed to conduct a reasonable investigation following 23 his written credit reporting dispute. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Citi 24 (Doc. 137), but the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded that decision (Doc. 142). On 25 remand, the case was proceeding to trial when Plaintiff accepted Citi’s Offer of Judgment, 26 settling the case for $50,000. (Doc. 200). That settlement did not include or address 27 attorneys’ fees, so Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees pursuant to the 28 fee shifting provision of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n(a)(3) and Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 2 of 35 1 1681o(a)(2), the Offer of Judgment, and Local Rule 54.2. (Doc. 203). Plaintiff seeks to 2 recover $481,807.50 in attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 203 at 1). Citi argues that amount is excessive 3 and requests an award capped at $150,333.20. (Doc. 206 at 18). 4 II. Lodestar Calculation 5 “[C]ourts employ the ‘lodestar’ method to determine a reasonable attorney’s fees 6 award.” Kelly v. Wengler, 822 F.3d 1085, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Fischer v. SJB–P.D. 7 Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000)). “[A] court calculates the lodestar figure by 8 multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on a case by a reasonable hourly 9 rate.” Id. The Court has “considerable discretion” in determining the reasonableness of 10 attorney’s fees. Webb v. Ada County Idaho, 195 F.3d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1999). After 11 calculating the lodestar amount, a Court may reduce or multiply the award based on a 12 variety of factors. Those factors include: 13 “(1) the time and labor required, (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions 14 involved, (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly, (4) the 15 preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case, (5) 16 the customary fee, (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent, (7) time limitations 17 imposed by the client or the circumstances, (8) the amount involved and the results 18 obtained, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys, (10) the 19 ‘undesirability’ of the case, (11) the nature and length of the professional 20 relationship with the client, and (12) awards in similar cases.” 21 Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975) (citing Johnson v. 22 Georgia Highway Express, inc., 488 F.2d 714, 720 (5th Cir. 1974)) (“Kerr factors”).1 Some 23 of these factors normally are subsumed in the lodestar such that they should not be 24 considered again after the lodestar is determined. See Gonzalez v. City of Maywood, 729 25 F.3d 1196, 1209 (9th Cir. 2013) (identifying factors that are normally considered when 26 calculating lodestar). 27 1 Local Rule 54.2 also lists factors the Court must address when determining the 28 reasonableness of the requested award. These factors are largely duplicative of the Kerr factors. -2- Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 3 of 35 1 A. Hourly Rates 2 The first question is whether the rates asserted by Plaintiff are reasonable. “A 3 reasonable hourly rate is ordinarily the prevailing market rate in the relevant community.” 4 Southwest Fair Housing Council v. WG Scottsdale LLC, 2022 WL 16715613, *3 (D. Ariz. 5 Nov. 4, 2022) (citing Kelly, 822 F.3d at 1099). And “the burden is on the fee applicant to 6 produce satisfactory evidence—in addition to the attorney’s own affidavits—that the 7 requested rates are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by 8 lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Blum v. Stenson, 465 9 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984). 10 Plaintiff submitted the following rates and asserts they are reasonable: 11 Attorney 2018-19 2020 2021 2022 2023 David A. Chami 12 $500/hour $550/hour $650/hour $725/hour $725/hour Nemer N. Hadous 13 N/A N/A N/A $500/hour $550/hour Beth Findsen 14 $500/hour $525/hour N/A N/A $575/hour Michael Yancey III 15 N/A N/A $275/hour $275/hour N/A 16 17 To support Plaintiff’s claim of reasonableness, each of the four attorneys submitted 18 affidavits stating they have determined these rates are reasonable. (Docs. 203-4, 203-5, 19 203-7, and 203-8). Plaintiff also submitted additional declarations from other lawyers 20 litigating in the consumer protection practice area to substantiate that these rates are 21 reasonable for the years at issue. (Docs. 203-6, 203-9, 203-10). These declarations all 22 include the same language indicating the market rate in Arizona for this type of case “is a 23 range from $300-850+ per hour,” and that the “market rate in Phoenix is generally skewed 24 to the higher end of that rang [sic] to account to [sic] the higher cost of living in a 25 metropolitan area.” (Docs. 203-6 at 3, 203-9 at 12, and 203-10 at 3).2 Lastly, Plaintiff 26 submitted a United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report for the year 2017- 27 2 The Court notes the presence of the typographical errors in each of the affidavits from 28 three different attorneys in the same paragraph, suggesting this boilerplate language was provided to the affiants. -3- Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 4 of 35 1 2018, which supports that the median rate for attorneys handling credit rights cases was 2 between $350 and $675/hour. (Doc. 203-2 at 73). 3 Plaintiff states the following information about the lawyers practicing in this case. 4 Citi does not object or respond specifically to any of this information. 5 David Chami has been practicing law for 13 years, with extensive experience in 6 consumer protection litigation. (Doc. 203 at 11). Mr. Chami has been the managing partner 7 of Price Law Group, APC since 2014, and he has served as the co-chair for the National 8 Association of Consumer Attorneys in Arizona. (Id.) He has worked as either lead or 9 supervising attorney in over 750 consumer and civil rights cases in federal courts in the 10 past six years. (Id. at 14-15).3 Nemer Hadous has been practicing as an attorney since 2009. 11 He has participated in nine jury trials over the past 10 years, and has extensive experience 12 in civil trial and appellate litigation.4 Beth Findsen has practiced law for approximately 26 13 years, and for the past 15 years has focused primarily on consumer protection cases. 5 (Id. 14 at 17). Lastly, Michael Yancey III has been practicing law for just over a year, but has 15 worked with Price Law Group, APC since his first year of law school.6 (Id.) 16 Citi does not specifically respond to Plaintiff’s proffered reasonable rates, except to 17 argue that in December of 2022, Mr. Chami told Defense Counsel that his billing rate for 18 2022 was $650/hour. The present motion asserts his billing rate for 2022 was $725/hour. 19 (Doc. 206 at 9). Plaintiff responds that the touchstone in attorneys’ fees awards is not what 20 was actually billed, but what a reasonable rate was at that time. (Doc. 209 at 14-15). 21 Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the rates requested are 22 generally reasonable, that is, that they fall within a broad $400 window of reasonableness 23 and that attorneys in Phoenix receive the higher end of that window, accounting for 24 inflation. (See, e.g., Doc. 203 at 10-11). However, Plaintiff cannot simply assert a higher 25 rate (here, $725/hour) with no specific justification, especially when there is evidence 26 Plaintiff’s counsel in fact previously believed a lower rate ($650/hour) was reasonable for 27 3 David Chami is noted as “DAC” in the attached spreadsheet. 4 Nemer Hadous is noted as “NEMER H.” in the attached spreadsheet. 28 5 Beth Findsen is noted as “BETH F.” in the attached spreadsheet. 6 Michael Yancey III is noted as “MYIII” in the attached spreadsheet. -4- Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 5 of 35 1 the same year. 2 The Court finds that the experience, reputation, and ability of Plaintiff’s counsel 3 generally support the hourly fees requested in this case. Accordingly, the Court finds 4 Plaintiff’s rate schedule above is reasonable, with the exception of Mr. Chami’s rate for 5 2022. The Court will assess his rate for hours billed in 2022 at $650/hour. Because of 6 inflation and the lack of contrary evidence from Citi, the Court will assess his hours billed 7 in 2023 at $725/hour.7 8 B. Reasonable Hours 9 Next, the Court turns to the reasonableness of the hours spent on the litigation. 10 Courts may “exclude from this initial fee calculation hours that were not ‘reasonably 11 expended.’” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983). See also McKown v. City 12 of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court should exclude hours from 13 lodestar calculation that are “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary”); Lassley v. 14 Secura Supreme Ins. Co., CV-14-1667 JWS, 2015 WL 7567467, *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 25, 15 2015). Citi argues the hours in the lodestar calculation should be reduced for a number of 16 reasons. The Court addresses each below. 17 i. Cutoff Date 18 On April 28, 2021, while Plaintiff’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit was pending, Citi 19 offered to settle with Plaintiff for $35,000. Plaintiff counteroffered a few months later with 20 a demand of $750,000, which his own attorney admitted was “too high.” (Doc. 206 at 3- 21 4). Citi rejected that demand but offered $100,000 on July 21, 2021. Plaintiff rejected that 22 offer in September of 2021. The parties then argued the appeal before the Ninth Circuit. 23 The case ultimately settled in January of 2023 within a month of trial, after the Ninth 24 Circuit reversed and remanded this Court’s order on summary judgment, for $50,000. 25 Citi first argues that any time spent after April 28, 2021 was de facto unreasonable. 26 Citi argues in a case where a rejected settlement offer exceeds the ultimate recovery, the 27 plaintiff does not receive any benefit from his attorney’s services after that rejected offer. 28 7 Several of the Kerr factors are relevant to the reasonableness of Plaintiff’s proposed hourly rates. The Court incorporates its discussion of the Kerr factors below. -5- Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 6 of 35 1 (Doc. 26 at 5) (citing Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 11 (1985)). Citi asserts Plaintiff rejected 2 numerous reasonable settlement offers. Since the case ultimately settled for $50,000, Citi 3 argues Plaintiff received “virtually no benefit” from the legal work performed after April 4 28, 2021. (Doc. 206 at 7). Citi argues Plaintiff’s unreasonable settlement conduct should 5 be considered in the award of attorneys’ fees, and that since Plaintiff’s counsel indicated 6 their fees through April 28, 2021 were $228,057.50, that should be the absolute limit of the 7 lodestar calculation. (Doc. 206 at 7). 8 Plaintiff responds he in fact litigated a successful appeal after this date. Plaintiff 9 argues the offer of $35,000 on April 28, 2021 was inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs, 10 which would not have come close to covering the fees and costs accrued to date. (Doc. 209 11 at 8). Plaintiff also asserts the unreasonable settlement negotiations went both ways, and 12 that Citi’s recitation of the facts is one-sided and misleading. 13 Both parties acted unreasonably at various points during the litigation with respect 14 to settlement offers. And Plaintiff did succeed in obtaining a reversal and remand at the 15 Ninth Circuit after the date which Citi urges the Court to cut off attorney’s fees. Thus, the 16 Court will not strictly “cut off” the date for Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees. However, 17 the Court will consider Plaintiff’s refusal of various reasonable settlement offers, including 18 at least one that doubled what he finally settled for, as a factor when reviewing the 19 reasonableness of the hours spent on this matter (see below). See, e.g., Paz v. Portfolio 20 Recovery Assocs., LLC, 924 F.3d 949, 953-54 (7th Cir. 2019) (affirming award of $10,875 21 in FCRA case where Plaintiff requested $187,410 in fees after refusing settlement and 22 proceeding to trial). 23 ii. Unreliable Evidence, Vague Descriptions, and Billing Judgment 24 Next, Citi argues Plaintiff’s evidence of their hours worked is unreliable and too 25 vague to assess reasonableness.8 Citi argues there is no evidentiary basis for the spreadsheet 26 8 Citi also argues Plaintiff’s counsel failed to exercise “billing judgment,” by which an 27 attorney eliminates time resulting from work that was “excessive, redundant, or otherwise 28 unnecessary.” (Doc. 206 at 10) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34). Citi argues 91% of Plaintiff’s time was billed by Mr. Chami, the most senior lawyer involved, which indicates -6- Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 7 of 35 1 provided by Plaintiff’s counsel, no corroborating evidence of the hours worked, and serious 2 discrepancies in the entries that suggest the hours are not accurate. Plaintiff responds that 3 counsel were not required to maintain contemporaneous time records, and that their 4 spreadsheet was sufficient under the Ninth Circuit precedent and the local rules. Citi 5 relatedly argues Plaintiff’s counsel failed to reduce its request for excessive, inefficient, 6 redundant, or duplicate entries, and Citi asks the Court to reduce the total lodestar figure 7 by 20% to account for these failures. Plaintiff argues he did make such reductions, 8 including removing charges attributed to “legal work unrelated to Citi” and not including 9 unscheduled communication with opposing counsel. (See Doc. 209 at 12). 10 The Court notes that the “legal work unrelated to Citi” constitutes 33 out of 530 11 entries, each of which was only billed at 0.1 hours, for a total reduction of 3.3 hours out of 12 a request for over 800 hours. Additionally, the Court agrees with Citi that many of 13 Plaintiff’s entries are excessive, vaguely worded, or otherwise poorly itemized. While 14 some of the time entries contain sufficient information and documentation to support the 15 hours spent, the Court finds that numerous entries are excessive, duplicative, or too vague 16 to assess reasonableness.9 17 Before considering the specific time entries, the Court will analyze some of the Kerr 18 factors. See, e.g., Graves v. Arpaio, 633 F. Supp. 2d 834, 846 (D. Ariz. 2009) (listing Kerr 19 20 a failure to delegate appropriately. Plaintiff responds it is his decision how best to run his 21 law firm and manage his cases, and that the Court cannot substitute its judgment on those issues. The Court will not reduce attorney’s fees based on failure to delegate to lower-level 22 attorneys. However, Plaintiff was not free to bill attorney time for clerical tasks. The Ninth 23 Circuit recognized long ago “[i]t simply is not reasonable for a lawyer to bill, at her regular hourly rate, for tasks that a non-attorney employed by her could perform at a much lower 24 cost.” Davis v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1543 (9th Cir. 1992). Thus, 25 the Court will reduce all tasks that could have been performed by a non-attorney. 9 Citi specifically mentions the following entries: spending 16 hours to draft a one-count 26 complaint; spending 30 minutes to pay a filing fee; spending 30 minute reviewing a summons; spending 1.8 hours reviewing a one-page order denying an extension of time; 27 spending over an hour to review a notice of deposition; and spending 1.4 hours to review 28 their own amici’s uncontested, 2.5 page request to participate in oral argument at the Court of Appeals. (Doc. 206 at 9). -7- Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 8 of 35 1 factors normally subsumed in lodestar calculation). This case, brought under FCRA, was a 2 complex case. As Plaintiff argues, the case progressed through summary judgment 3 briefing, a full appeal to the Ninth Circuit, reversal and remand, briefly re-opened 4 discovery, and trial preparation. The case required multiple expert witnesses and spanned 5 nearly five years. The Ninth Circuit reversal indicates to some extent how complex FCRA 6 questions can be. However, the Court notes the parties engaged in fruitless settlement talks, 7 and apparently did not have a realistic sense of Plaintiff’s damages at various points in the 8 litigation. Given these facts, a large award of fees is not surprising. 9 As reflected in his hourly rate, Plaintiff’s counsel has the skill and experience to 10 litigate this FCRA case successfully. As discussed above when determining whether the 11 hourly fees requested were reasonable, Plaintiff’s counsel has extensive experience in this 12 practice area. Plaintiff’s counsel also litigated the appeal themselves. Plaintiff additionally 13 argues that all FCRA plaintiffs’ attorneys “are financially limited in the number of cases, 14 and the types of other cases, that they may accept while litigating under the FCRA.” (Doc. 15 203 at 8). Plaintiff argues this factor weighs in favor of his fee request. However, Plaintiff’s 16 counsel provided no particular details about their caseloads or whether they were, in fact, 17 precluded from working on other cases while this matter was pending. Additionally, as 18 discussed below, even if Plaintiff’s counsel turned down other cases while working on 19 Plaintiff’s, many of the hours Plaintiff’s counsel spent on this litigation were not reasonably 20 expended; thus, it is unclear what significance this factor has in Plaintiff’s fee calculation.10 21 Counsel’s experience and skill, which support a high hourly rate, undercut many of 22 the time entries reflected in the records. Experienced counsel should be able to perform 23 simple tasks in very little time and even complex tasks should take experienced counsel far 24 less than counsel unfamiliar with this area of law. The billing entries, however, reflect 25 Plaintiff’s lead counsel spent an inordinate amount of time performing tasks he should have 26 been able to perform in significantly less time. For example, an experienced attorney able 27 10 Plaintiff’s counsel was retained on a contingent basis, due to FCRA’s fee-shifting provision. (Doc. 203 at 12). This factor is irrelevant to the lodestar calculation. Davis v. 28 City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536, 1549 (9th Cir. 1992), vacated in part on other grounds, 984 F.2d 345 (9th Cir. 1993). -8- Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 9 of 35 1 to bill at $725 per hour should be able to draft a seven-page complaint in less than fifteen 2 hours. 3 The Court carefully considered the time and labor reasonably required for each task 4 on Plaintiff’s spreadsheet. While some tasks, like preparing for deposition or drafting 5 motions, undoubtedly take hours of time, some of Plaintiff’s requests are so excessive as 6 to render all of the entries unreliable. The following are only a few of the more extreme 7 entries reflecting unreasonable time spent on tasks: 8 1) On April 16, 2019, counsel allegedly spent 2.7 hours to “draft[]/review[] 9 statement of discovery dispute.” Plaintiff’s portion of that filing is nine lines of 10 text and Citi’s portion is 14 lines. (Doc. 81). It is not remotely plausible a 11 reasonable, experienced attorney would spend three hours on this task. Shortly 12 after the parties’ filing, the Court issued an Order resolving this dispute. That 13 Order was less than two pages. Plaintiff’s counsel recorded 0.8, or 48 minutes, 14 reading that Order. No reasonable attorney would take that long to perform that 15 task. 16 2) On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel recorded he spent 1.8 hours reviewing an 17 Order denying a request for extension of time. That Order consisted of five lines, 18 totaling 69 words. It is not possible a reasonable attorney would spend almost 19 two hours reading five lines of text. 20 3) On May 29, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel recorded 1.4 hours for drafting and 21 reviewing another discovery dispute statement. Plaintiff’s portion of that 22 statement was fifteen lines and Citi’s was the same length. A reasonable attorney 23 would not have spent almost 90 minutes drafting and reviewing 30 lines of text. 24 4) On June 17, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel recorded 1.9 hours for drafting a statement 25 of discovery dispute. Plaintiff’s portion of that statement was longer than 26 previous discovery disputes but was still only one page of text. A reasonable 27 attorney would not have spent 2 hours drafting a single page. After receiving the 28 dispute, the Court called for additional briefing in an Order approximately 180 -9- Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 10 of 35 1 words in length. Plaintiff’s counsel recorded spending 0.7 reading that order. A 2 reasonable attorney would be able to read more than four words per minute. 3 5) On August 12, 2019, Plaintiff’s counsel recorded 1.4 hours “receiving” expert 4 disclosures. There is a separate entry for reviewing the expert disclosure, 5 meaning the “receiving” entry reflects only the task of receipt. But “receiving” 6 documents takes no time at all. No reasonable attorney would bill 1.4 hours for 7 a task that take effectively zero time. 8 6) On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel recorded 6.1 hours to “review” the 9 three motions in limine filed by Citi. Those motions totaled less than 15 pages. 10 A reasonable attorney would not spend hours and hours merely “reviewing” such 11 filings. 12 These few examples show there are two possibilities: either the billing records are false, or 13 counsel is not competent to perform tasks at a pace that any court would deem to be 14 reasonable. Regardless of which possibility is accurate, the Court will make significant and 15 required reductions to the requested time. 16 When calculating the lodestar amount, the Court may “reduce the amount of 17 requested fees . . . to deduct those hours the court deems excessive.” Ryan v. Editions Ltd. 18 West, Inc., 786 F.3d 754, 763 (9th Cir. 2015). Instead of applying a blanket reduction, as 19 Citi requested, the Court reviewed each individual line item and determined, based on the 20 phase of the litigation and the surrounding entries, whether each entry represented a 21 reasonable request. Compare Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 948 (9th 22 Cir. 2007) (vacating across-the-board reduction of hours and ordering district court to tie 23 reductions to actual hours). Based on all of these reasons, the Court will reduce and remove 24 entries in Plaintiff’s request. The attached spreadsheet shows the Court’s reductions, with 25 explanatory labels such as “excessive,” “vague,” or “excessive and vague” as relevant.11 26 The Court reduced some of these entries by 50%, reduced some to a nominal or reasonable 27 11 For a few entries, the Court reduces them for other reasons, such as redundancy with 28 other entries. The Court indicated additional reasons for reduction as relevant on the attached spreadsheet. - 10 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 11 of 35 1 time expenditure, or removed the entry altogether, depending on the description of the task 2 and the length of time noted for that task. See, e.g., Southwest Fair Housing Council v. WG 3 Scottsdale LLC, 2022 WL 16715613, *7 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2022) (reducing entries by 50% 4 and removing some entries altogether, for entries that are “so vague such that their 5 reasonableness cannot be evaluated,” including entries such as “draft complaint” or 6 “deposition preparation”); Abrams v. Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC, 2023 WL 2757195, 7 *9 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2023) (reducing various entries by 50% for lack of specificity). 8 Because some entries undoubtedly reflect actual legal work performed by Plaintiff’s 9 counsel, a 50% reduction is appropriate in that it accounts for the lack of clarity while still 10 awarding a significant amount of hours to Plaintiff’s counsel. Where entries were so vague 11 that the Court was unable to assess reasonableness, or so very excessive as to be unreliable, 12 the Court awarded a nominal or reasonable amount of hours to indicate that while counsel 13 undoubtedly did perform the task, the requested hours were completely detached from any 14 concept of reasonableness and so warrant a significant reduction. 15 The Court reduced the lodestar figure to $309,938.75 for these reasons. 16 iii. Fees Incurred on Appeal 17 Lastly, Citi argues the Court does not have jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees 18 related to Plaintiff’s appeal, because Plaintiff failed to request attorney’s fees from the 19 Ninth Circuit directly pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.6. (Doc. 206 at 17). Under Ninth 20 Circuit rules and case law, a plaintiff must bring a motion for fees in the appellate court 21 when his success on appeal qualifies him as a “prevailing party.” Cummings v. Connell, 22 402 F.3d 936, 947-48 (9th Cir. 2005). But when a plaintiff “is not entitled to attorney’s 23 fees after an interlocutory appeal . . . it cannot immediately request attorney’s fees from 24 [the Ninth Circuit].” Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182, 1210 (9th Cir. 2015). But if “the 25 plaintiff subsequently become[s] a prevailing party, however, it should presumptively be 26 eligible for attorney’s fees incurred during the first appeal, because that appeal likely 27 contributed to the success of the underlying litigation.” Id. 28 The question then becomes whether Plaintiff was a “prevailing party” upon - 11 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 12 of 35 1 conclusion of the appeal in this case, in July 2022. Citi argues Plaintiff was a prevailing 2 party at that time because he “succeed[ed] on [a] significant issue in litigation which 3 achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. 4 Citi argues Plaintiff obtained a judgment from the Ninth Circuit that Citi’s reporting was 5 inaccurate as a matter of law, which was a “significant issue” in the litigation. Plaintiff 6 does not respond to this argument, but instead cites inapplicable case law. 7 It is true the Ninth Circuit held as a matter of law that Citi’s reporting was 8 inaccurate. However, the Ninth Circuit’s order specifically left multiple other elements of 9 Plaintiff’s FCRA claim open. Gross v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 33 F.4th 1246, 1252 (9th Cir. 10 2022) (“Establishing an inaccuracy is not enough, however; Gross must also show that the 11 inaccuracy was the product of an unreasonable investigation by CitiMortgage.”); id. at 12 1253 (leaving question of actual damages to jury on remand). Thus, Plaintiff was not a 13 “prevailing party” entitled to attorney’s fees under FCRA at that point in the litigation. 14 While the Ninth Circuit held he established one element of his FCRA claim, it remanded 15 for trial on the remaining elements of his claim. This situation is fundamentally different 16 than the case cited by Citi in which a preliminary injunction was granted in favor of a party 17 before the case was settled. See, e.g., Higher Taste, Inc. v. City of Tacoma, 717 F.3d 712, 18 716 (9th Cir. 2013). In that case, the Ninth Circuit explained the settlement transformed 19 the preliminary injunction into an “enduring” victory rather than an “ephemeral” one, 20 which meant that there was a “material alteration of the parties’ legal relationship” 21 sufficient to render the plaintiff a “prevailing party.” Id. at 717-18. Here, the Ninth Circuit’s 22 legal determination was neither enduring nor ephemeral, since it addressed only one 23 element of Plaintiff’s claim. On remand, a jury may have found for Citi on every other 24 element Plaintiff had left to prove. Only upon accepting Citi’s offer of judgment did 25 Plaintiff achieve enduring victory. 26 Thus, Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney’s fees upon conclusion of the Ninth 27 Circuit appeal in this case. He did not forfeit his ability to request those fees, and this Court 28 has jurisdiction to award them in the first instance. See Yamada, 786 F.3d at 1210. - 12 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 13 of 35 1 iv. Lodestar Calculation 2 Accordingly, after reducing the Plaintiff’s requested lodestar amount to remove 3 unreasonable and excessive hours, the Court calculates the lodestar amount to be: 4 $309,938.75. 5 C. Downward Adjustment 6 There is a “strong assumption that the ‘lodestar’ method represents a reasonable 7 fee,” Corrales-Gonzalez v. Speed Auto Wholesalers LLC, 2023 WL 3981139, * 7 (D. Ariz. 8 June 13, 2023) (quoting Casavelli v. Johanson, No. CV-20-00497-PHX-JAT, 2021 WL 9 3400608, *6 (D. Ariz. July 20, 2021)). But the Court also “has discretion to adjust the 10 lodestar upward or downward” based on the Kerr factors not subsumed in the lodestar 11 calculation. Stetson v. Grissom, 821 F.3d 1157, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2016). Courts must assess 12 these factors and must articulate “with sufficient clarity the manner in which it makes its 13 determination.” Carter v. Caleb Brett LLC, 757 F.3d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 2014) (citation 14 omitted). 15 Some of these factors are subsumed in the above analysis. The Court considers the 16 remaining factors here. 17 i. Customary Fee 18 Plaintiff argues there is no such thing as a “customary fee” in a FCRA case because 19 of its fee-shifting provision. Instead, courts look to what the prevailing rates and hours in 20 the community are for “similar services by lawyers of comparable skill, experience, and 21 reputation.” (Doc. 203 at 9) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)). As 22 discussed above, Plaintiff submitted affidavits from each of the attorneys who worked on 23 this case as well as affidavits from lawyers in the community to substantiate the hourly fees 24 Plaintiff requests. Plaintiff also provides data on the average hourly rates for credit related 25 cases in Phoenix Arizona from 2017-2018, and a calculation from the Bureau of Labor 26 Statistics accounting for inflation over the past five years. (Doc. 203 at 10-11). The Court 27 also acknowledges that Plaintiff’s counsel are all attorneys with extensive experience in 28 consumer protection litigation. It is unclear what the significance of this factor is, other - 13 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 14 of 35 1 than to support that Plaintiff’s requested hourly rates were reasonable, as already 2 considered above. 3 ii. Time Limitations 4 Plaintiff admits there were no time limitations imposed by the client or the 5 circumstances in this case. (Doc. 203 at 12). This factor is thus inapplicable. 6 iii. Amount Involved and Results Obtained 7 The Supreme Court has instructed the “most critical factor in determining the 8 reasonableness of a fee award ‘is the degree of success obtained.’” Farrar v. Hobby, 506 9 U.S. 103, 114 (1992) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436). See also Rudebusch v. Arizona, 10 No. 95-CV-1313-PCT-RCB, 2007 WL 2774482, at *5 (D. Ariz. Sept. 21, 2007) (quoting 11 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436). If a “plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the 12 product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly 13 rate may be an excessive amount.” Farrar, 506 U.S. at 114 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 14 436). Indeed, “[a] reduced fee award is appropriate if the relief, however significant, is 15 limited in comparison to the scope of the litigation as a whole.” Hensley, 461 U.S. at 440. 16 This case settled for $50,000 and a judgment against Citi after nearly five years of 17 litigation. Plaintiff claims this amount is a reflection of a successful litigation, because it is 18 well above the statutory maximum of $1,000 for actual damages. (Doc. 203 at 12-13). 19 Plaintiff further argues that under fee-shifting statutes, the attorney’s fees awarded can— 20 and perhaps should—dramatically exceed the actual recovery for the prevailing party. (Id. 21 at 13-14). Citi, on the other hand, argues the fee-shifting nature of FCRA cases should 22 make courts especially vigilant to guard against lawyers gouging defendants for outsized 23 fee awards. This case presents exactly that situation, Citi asserts, where Plaintiff settled for 24 far less than he originally sought, and where Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel acted 25 irrationally during settlement negotiations. Plaintiff had at one point requested $750,000 to 26 settle the case after remand from the Ninth Circuit, which was fifteen times what he 27 ultimately accepted. Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel sent Citi a list of cases they claimed 28 Plaintiff’s damages (for emotional distress and punitive) would “likely be in line with.” - 14 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 15 of 35 1 (Doc. 206-1 at 76-80). It is difficult to discern what Plaintiff’s counsel meant by that, 2 because the list of cases includes awards from $10,000 to over $1,000,000. Citi contends 3 the average award in Plaintiff’s cited cases was $375,000, which represents a marked 4 difference from the $50,000 Plaintiff ultimately voluntarily accepted. 5 It seems, judging both from Plaintiff’s collected cases and the Court’s review of the 6 conduct and claims in this matter itself, that $50,000 was actually a minor victory for 7 Plaintiff. And Citi argues it was “patently unreasonable for counsel to spend 815 hours 8 litigating a $50,000 case, particularly where the disclosed economic damages were less 9 than $2,000 and the balance was a speculative claim for emotional distress.” (Doc. 206 at 10 14) (emphasis in original). Citi asserts Plaintiff’s counsel would receive a windfall were 11 the Court to award the full lodestar amount. (Id.) The Court agrees. 12 Moreover, the Court reviews Plaintiff’s success in the accepted offer within the 13 context of the litigation as a whole. It seems highly likely that this case could have settled 14 sooner, perhaps even more favorably for Plaintiff, had both parties acted reasonably. 15 Instead, the settlement negotiations in this case were remarkedly unreasonable on both 16 sides. As far back as August of 2018, the year Plaintiff filed suit, Plaintiff offered to settle 17 the case for $50,000, the amount he would settle for nearly five years later. (Doc. 206-1 at 18 1). Citi rejected that offer because, they claim, at that time Plaintiff had not substantiated 19 any of his economic damages. Citi later offered to settle for $2,000, which Plaintiff refused. 20 A month later, Plaintiff demanded $125,000, inclusive of $81,050 in fees (leaving $43,950 21 for Plaintiff, very close to the $50,000 he ultimately accepted). Just over a month after that, 22 Plaintiff increased his demand to $200,000, inclusive of $113,100 in fees and $86,900 for 23 Plaintiff, without any new disclosure of additional damages. Citi refused the $200,000 24 demand and offered $7,500, which Plaintiff’s counsel said was a “ridiculous offer[].” (Doc. 25 206-1 at 39). After Citi prevailed on summary judgment, Citi offered Plaintiff $35,000, 26 which Plaintiff refused. Plaintiff countered with $750,000, which even Mr. Chami admitted 27 was “too high.” (Doc. 206-1 at 48). On July 21, 2021, Citi offered $100,000, which Plaintiff 28 rejected. Finally, after remand from the Ninth Circuit, Plaintiff demanded $1,500,000. - 15 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 16 of 35 1 (Doc. 206-1 at 53). 2 Believe it or not, this was not the end of the parties’ shenanigans. Within a month 3 of trial, Citi served a $50,000 offer of judgment. Citi offered to increase the offer to Plaintiff 4 to $75,000 if the parties could settle upon reasonable attorney’s fees without litigation at 5 $275,000. (Doc. 206-1 at 54). Mr. Chami responded, “No way[.] I’d rather pay Mr. Gross 6 out of my fees to get him on board with the current [offer of judgment].” (Doc. 206-1 at 7 54). 8 Both parties expressed unreasonable attitudes towards settlement—that much is 9 clear. Citi’s offers at times dramatically undervalued Plaintiff’s claims. But far more 10 egregious were Plaintiff’s wild and ever-increasing, unreasonable demands that seem 11 largely detached from any evidentiary basis. As Plaintiff’s demands kept increasing, so too 12 did Plaintiff’s counsel’s fees, in an unreasonable manner. Plaintiff’s counsel’s hours 13 expended on this litigation were not “required” nor “reasonable.” 14 The Court weighs this factor against awarding the full amount of the lodestar. 15 iv. Undesirability of the Case 16 Plaintiff argues cases under FCRA are generally undesirable to most attorneys 17 because plaintiffs do not pay attorney’s fees and costs up front or along the way. The fee- 18 shifting provision of FCRA only awards fees if the plaintiff is successful. Plaintiff argues 19 the “undesirability” of FCRA cases generally weighs in favor of Plaintiff’s requested fees. 20 The Court generally agrees with Plaintiff and find this factor weighs in favor of Plaintiff’s 21 requested fees. See, e.g., Caccamise v. Credit One Bank, N.A., No. 18-CV-971-JLS (BLM), 22 2020 WL 804741, *10 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2020) (finding FCRA cases are “undesirable” 23 absent the fee-shifting provision, and that awarding reasonable attorney’s fees encourages 24 attorneys to work on such cases). 25 v. Nature and Length of Client Relationship 26 Plaintiff did not have a professional relationship with his counsel before this matter 27 arose. (Doc. 2013 at 19). This factor is neutral. 28 vi. Awards in Similar Cases - 16 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 17 of 35 1 Lastly, the Court considers awards in similar cases. Plaintiff points the Court to 2 seven cases it argues demonstrate similar awards in similar cases. (Doc. 203 at 20-21). 3 Plaintiff’s cited authority is misleading. While some of the cases support an hourly rate 4 similar to what Plaintiff’s counsel has requested, the total fees awarded in many of those 5 cases fall well below what Plaintiff requests here. Shelago v. Marshall Ziolkowski Enter., 6 LLC, No. CV-07-0279-PHX-JAT, 2009 WL 1097534, *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 22, 2009) 7 (awarding $17,175.33 in attorneys’ fees with rates of $400/hour); Meguerditchian v. Aetna 8 Life Ins. Co., No. 2:12-CV-10999-ODW (JCx), 2014 WL 3926805, *6 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 9 2014) (awarding $19,807.50 in reasonable attorneys’ fees with rates of $600/hour in 10 ERISA case); Doyle v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., No. 2:14-CV-3893-KM-SCM, 2017 11 WL 6944789, *6 (D.N.J. Dec. 1, 2017) (awarding $11,594.38 in attorneys’ fees, with 12 hourly rates of between $250/hour and $467.50/hour in FDCPA case); Heling v. Creditors 13 Collection Serv. Inc., No. 15-CV-1274-JPS, 2017 WL 2539785, *7 (E.D. Wis. June 12, 14 2017) (awarding $36,190.80 in attorneys’ fees with hourly rates of $450/hour in FDCPA 15 case). 16 Plaintiff also attempts to elide this matter with other types of cases entirely. E.g., In 17 re Sears, Roebuck and Co. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 06-C-7023, 18 2018 WL 3707804, *8 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2018) (awarding nearly $500,000 in warranty 19 class action). Plaintiff also asserts Phoenix fees are similar to those charged in San 20 Francisco and Los Angeles. Wit v. United Behavioral Health, 578 F. Supp. 3d 1060 (N.D. 21 Cal. 2022) (awarding over $19 million in an ERISA case). The relevance and 22 persuasiveness of these cases is dubious. 23 The Court is unpersuaded that this factor weighs in favor of granting the full lodestar 24 amount. On the contrary, Plaintiff provided case law suggesting far smaller awards are 25 reasonable. And the Court’s own review suggests that reasonable attorneys’ fees in FCRA 26 cases are far less than Plaintiff requests, especially given Plaintiff’s limited success here. 27 See, e.g., Jansen v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 05-CV-385-BR, 2011 WL 846876, 28 *17 (D. Ore. Mar. 9, 2011) (awarding $298,959.75 in reasonable attorneys’ fees in FCRA - 17 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 18 of 35 1 case that settled for $275,000 after nearly six years of litigation); Smith v. General Info. 2 Servs., Inc., 2019 WL 2106171, *9 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2019) (awarding $103,840.00 in 3 reasonable attorneys’ fees in FCRA case that settled for $105,000); Seungtae Kim v. BMW 4 Fin. Servs. NA, LLC, 2015 WL 12734013, *11 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2015) (awarding 5 $280,934.90 in reasonable attorneys’ fees in FCRA and California Identity Theft (CIT) 6 case where Plaintiff secured judgment after trial of $250,000 on FCRA claim and $150,000 7 on CIT claim). 8 This factor thus weighs against awarding the full lodestar amount to Plaintiff. 9 vii. Lodestar Reduction 10 Having considered all of the Kerr factors, the Court determines a 20% reduction of 11 the lodestar amount is appropriate in this case. See Rodriguez v Barrita, Inc., 53 F. Supp. 12 3d 1268, 1290 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (reducing lodestar by additional 20% which “reflects that 13 while the enormous time spent on this litigation was in some respects out of proportion to 14 the results ultimately obtained, counsel nonetheless achieved significant success for their 15 client and the public”); Achloul v. Fair Debt Collections and Outsourcing, 2010 WL 16 1730789, *4 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2010) (reducing lodestar by additional 20% in light of 17 limited success); Sonrai Sys., LLC v. Romano, 2023 WL 4205518, *4, 6 (N.D. Ill. June 27, 18 2023) (reducing lodestar by additional 20% for lack of success). In this case, the 20% 19 reduction is based on the limited success achieved by Plaintiff after a lengthy litigation 20 with multiple unreasonable settlement negotiations. While Plaintiff had what turned out to 21 be a meritorious claim, reflected in the Ninth Circuit’s order and the ultimate settlement 22 agreement, the time spent on litigation here was not proportional to the results obtained. 23 The 20% reduction is also based on the Court’s review of awards in similar cases, which 24 rarely reach the amount Plaintiff’s counsel seeks. 25 III. Conclusion 26 In calculating the lodestar amount, the Court reduced Plaintiff’s requested hourly 27 rate for Mr. Chami for 2022 to $650 because Plaintiff failed to provide evidentiary support 28 for the reasonableness of the requested rate of $725/hour. The Court further reduced the - 18 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 19 of 35 1 hours reasonably expended on the litigation for a variety of entries where Plaintiff’s 2 counsel did not provide enough specificity or where the hours spent were excessive for the 3 task at hand. The Court thus calculated the lodestar amount to be $309,938.75. Finally, 4 after reviewing the remaining Kerr factors, the Court applied a 20% reduction to the 5 lodestar amount for lack of success and to closer align with awards in similar cases. The 6 Court will award attorneys’ fees in the amount of $247,951.00. 7 Accordingly, 8 IT IS ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees is 9 GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants shall pay Plaintiff 10 $247,951.00 in attorneys’ fees. 11 Dated this 10th day of August, 2023. 12 13 14 Honorable Roslyn O. Silver 15 Senior United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 19 - Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 20 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 10/24/2017 DAC Received and reviewed email from Ed Rylund Chicanos referring Marshall Gross 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; 50% reduction to account for "review." 10/24/2017 DAC Email correspondence with Marshall Gross about potential case and setting up intake phone call 0.1 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Received documents from Marshall regarding Citi mortgage and conducted document review for potential case - prorated $ 825.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; 50% reduction to 10/26/2017 DAC 3.3 1.7 $ 500.00 $ 1,650.00 from 6.2 hours based on claims against other defendants account for "review." Received more documents from Marshall, conducted additional document review, and set up call to discuss next steps - $ 425.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; 50% reduction to 3/6/2018 DAC prorated from 3 hours based on claims 1.7 0.9 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 account for "review." against other defendants 3/7/2018 DAC Conference call with Marshall discussing reporting issues and provided documents and setting up in-person meeting with 1.7 1.7 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 Marshall and his wife 4/30/2018 DAC Meeting with Marshall and his wife to discuss additional documents docs 1.7 1.7 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 5/1/2018 DAC Email communication with Marshall regarding case and additional information needed 0.5 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 5/15/2018 DAC Reviewed Dispute Response from Experian and considered credit reporting issue for liability against Citi for continued harmful 1 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 reporting 5/18/2018 DAC Reviewed Dispute Response from Equifax and considered credit reporting issue for liability against Citi for continued harmful 1.1 1.1 $ 500.00 $ 550.00 $ 550.00 reporting 5/22/2018 DAC Reviewed dispute response from TU and considered credit reporting issue for liability against Citi 0.7 0.7 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 6/8/2018 DAC Email communication with Marshall regarding case and additional information needed 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 6/11/2018 DAC Received email communication with Marshall with additional information needed 0.5 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. 6/15/2018 DAC Email communication with Marshall regarding the Citi account reporting 0.5 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 6/18/2018 DAC In-office email communications regarding complaint 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 6/19/2018 DAC Prepared initial draft of the complaint - setup call to discuss with client - prorated from 5.8 hours based on claims against 3.1 1.6 $ 500.00 $ 1,550.00 $ 775.00 Vague; 50% reduction. other defendants Continued to work on draft complaint, in-office emailregarding track changes and final read through - prorated from 4.2 hours $ 575.00 Vague; 50% reduction. 6/25/2018 DAC based on claims against other 2.3 1.2 $ 500.00 $ 1,150.00 defendants 6/25/2018 DAC Email communication with client regarding complaint 0.1 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 6/26/2018 DAC Final read through and edits to the complaint. Final copy emailed to client for approval - prorated from 2.8 hours based on 1.6 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 800.00 $ 50.00 Excessive; clerical. Reduced to nominal time. claims against other defendants 7/3/2018 DAC 1 Review of client's approval of complaint and filing 0.4 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.00 Clerical 7/3/2018 DAC 2 Submitted summons 0.4 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.00 Clerical 7/3/2018 DAC 3 Paid filing fee 0.4 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.00 Clerical 7/5/2018 DAC 4 Reviewed issued summons for service 0.6 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 0.00 Clerical 7/5/2018 DAC 5 Reviewed Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) notice and order 0.5 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 7/16/2018 Reviewed and filed Proof of Service re: Summons upon Equifax Information Services, LLC $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 6 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 7/18/2018 DAC 7 Reviewed Rule 16 Order 0.6 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 150.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 7/23/2018 Reviwed and filed Proof of Service re: Summons upon Experian Information Solutions, Inc. $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 8 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 7/30/2018 Reviwed Trans Union's First Motion for Extension of Time To Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 9 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 7/30/2018 Reviewed corporate disclosure statement by TransUnion LLC. $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 10 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 8/2/2018 $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 11 Reveiwed Experian Information Solution, Inc.'s Answer 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 8/2/2018 Reviewed corporate disclosure statement by Experian Information Solutions Incorporated $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 12 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) Page 1 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 21 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 8/2/2018 Reviewed Order granting Trans Union's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 13 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 8/2/2018 $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work Unrelated $ DAC 14 Reviewed Equifax Information Services LLC's ANSWER 0.1 0.1 To Citi) - 8/2/2018 Reviewed corporate disclosure statement by Equifax Information Services LLC. $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 15 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 8/8/2018 Reviewed text order granting pro hac vice motion for Sheereen Javadizadeh on behalf of defendant Experian Information $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Solutions Incorporated. Work $ DAC 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 8/10/2018 DAC 16 & Drafted First Amended Complaint and Notice of Filing First Amended Complaint 1.7 1.7 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 17 8/16/2018 $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 18 Reviewed Experian Information Solutions Incorporated's Answer to First Amended Complaint 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 8/23/2018 Drafted Notice of Settlement as to Trans Union, LLC $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 19 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 8/24/2018 Reviewed Equifax Information Services LLC's Answer $0 (Legal $ 0.00 to First Amended Complaint Work $ DAC 20 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 8/24/2018 DAC 21 Reviwed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by CitiBank NA. 4.8 2.4 $ 500.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 1200.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 8/25/2018 DAC Began drafting motion for sanctions under rule 11 and 28 USC 1927 related to Citi's unsupported motion to dismiss. 3.7 1.9 $ 500.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 925.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 8/27/2018 DAC 22 Reviewed Withdrawal of Motion to Dismiss by CitiBank 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive (1 page document); 50% reduction 8/28/2018 $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 23 Reviewed Order dismissing Trans Union and Vacating Deadlines 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work 8/31/2018 Reviewed Experian Information Solutions Incorporated's MIDP responses Unrelated $ DAC 24 0.1 0.1 To Citi) - 9/7/2018 DAC 25 Drafted Motion to Amend Complaint 1.7 1.7 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 9/10/2018 DAC 26 Reviewed Order vacating scheduling conference 0.1 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 9/14/2018 Reviewed Equifax Information Services LLC's MIDP responses $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 27 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 9/24/2018 DAC 28 Reviewed Order granting leave to amend complaint 0.1 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 9/25/2018 Drafted Notice of settlement as to Trans Union, LLC $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Only Work $ DAC 29 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 9/25/2018 DAC 30 Drafted Second Amended Complaint 0.8 0.8 $ 500.00 $ 400.00 $ 400.00 9/25/2018 DAC 31 Drafted and served MIDP Responses 1.3 1.3 $ 500.00 $ 650.00 $ 650.00 10/3/2018 DAC 32 Drafted joint Motion for Leave to Appear Telephonically 0.1 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 10/5/2018 DAC 33 Reviewed Order granting leave to appear telephonically 0.1 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 10/8/2018 DAC 34 Drafted Rule 26(f) Report - prorated from 3 hours based on claims against other defendants 1.7 0.9 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 $ 425.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction Page 2 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 22 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 10/9/2018 Reviewed Experian Information Solutions Incorporated's $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Answer to Second Amended Complaint Work $ DAC 35 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 10/9/2018 $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 36 Reviewed Equifax Information Services LLC's Answer to Second Amended Complaint 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) $ 975.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 10/9/2018 Reviewed Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by CitiBank NA. continued editing motion for sanctions DAC 37 3.9 2.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,950.00 10/9/2018 DAC 38 Reviewed Citibank NA's Answer to Second Amended Complaint 0.7 0.7 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 10/10/2018 DAC 39 Reveiwed deficiency notice 0.1 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 10/10/2018 Reviewed Experian Information Solutions, Inc.'s supplemental MIDP responses $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 40 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 10/12/2018 DAC 41 Attended Joint Status Conference (Telephonic) 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 10/12/2018 DAC 42 Reveiwed Rule 16 Scheduling Order 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 10/19/2018 DAC Researched citied authority in Citi's motion to dismiss. Found substantial contrary authority and began drafting legal arguments 5.1 5.1 $ 500.00 $ 2,550.00 $ 2550.00 10/20/2018 DAC Began drafting opposition to MTD and incorporating authority. Consulted NCLC manual and read similar decisions from other 4 2.0 $ 500.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1000.00 "Began drafting" is ambiguous, duplicative with prior entry, and jurisdictions vague; 50% reduction. Drafted and finalized Response in Opposition to Citibank NA's Motion to Dismiss - includes reviewing cited authority and $ 3000.00 10/22/2018 performing research into cases supporting Plaintiff's position (both state and federal authority) DAC 43 6 6.0 $ 500.00 $ 3,000.00 10/29/2018 DAC 44 Reviewed corporate disclosure by CitiBank NA. 0.4 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 50.00 Excessive and vague; reduced to nominal time. 10/30/2018 45 $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC Reviewed minute order dismissing Trans Union LLC 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 10/30/2018 DAC 46 Reviewed Reply to Opposition to Citibank NA's Motion to Dismiss. Read cases cited to prepare for oral argument 4.5 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 500.00 Excessive and vague; no oral argument was set. 12/12/2018 Drafted stipulation of dismissal as to Trans Union, LLC and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 47 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 12/17/2018 $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 48 Reviewed Order granting stipulation of dismissal 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work 12/18/2018 Reviewed and responded to discovery requests served by Equifax Information Services LLC. Unrelated $ DAC 49 0.1 0.1 To Citi) - 12/18/2018 DAC 50 Reviewed Citibank NA's responses to MIDP 2.7 1.4 $ 500.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 675.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/20/2018 DAC Reviewed documents produced by Citi -bates labled citi0001-00175 4.1 4.1 $ 500.00 $ 2,050.00 $ 2050.00 1/2/2019 Reviewed notice of appearance of attorney on behalf of Equifax Information Services LLC $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 51 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 1/7/2019 DAC 52 Initial review of ROG responses from Citibank NA - began noting deficiencies for meet and confer letter 4.2 4.2 $ 500.00 $ 2,100.00 $ 2100.00 1/8/2019 DAC Performed review of RFP responses from Citi. Began noting deficiencies for meet and confer 3.3 3.3 $ 500.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 1650.00 1/8/2019 DAC Performed review of RFA responses from Citi. Began noting deficiencies for meet and confer letter 2 2.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1000.00 1/9/2019 DAC Completed ROG responses with client 4.8 4.8 $ 500.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2400.00 1/10/2019 DAC Completed RFP responses and instructed client to provide any additional docs not yet produced 2.5 2.5 $ 500.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1250.00 1/10/2019 DAC Completed RFA responses with Client 1.7 1.7 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 1/16/2019 DAC 53 prepared meet and confer notes for all deficient responses as well as researched appropriate case law to discuss with OC 2.6 2.6 $ 500.00 $ 1,300.00 $ 1300.00 Page 3 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 23 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 1/18/2019 DAC 54 Reviewed and added appropriate objections to Discovery requests from CitiBank NA. worked with client to finalize some Rog 3 3.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1500.00 responses before serving $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work 1/21/2019 Drafted Notice of Settlement as to Equifax Information Services, LLC Unrelated $ DAC 55 0.1 0.1 To Citi) - 1/22/2019 Reviwed order regarding settlement as to Equifax $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Information Services, LLC Work $ DAC 56 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 1/23/2019 DAC Reviewed documents produced by Citi -bates labled citi00176-909 (received on 1-21-19) 6.4 6.4 $ 500.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 3200.00 2/1/2019 DAC 57 Drafted Motion to Continue Good Faith Settlement Talks deadline and for Clarification of the Court's Scheduling Order 2 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 250.00 Excessive and vague. 2/4/2019 $ 250.00 Excessive and vague. DAC 58 Reviewed Response to Motion to Continue Good Faith Settlement Talks deadline filed by CitiBank NA. 1.4 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 700.00 2/8/2019 DAC 59 Reviewed Order denying Motion to Continue Good Faith Settlement Talks and clarifying the Court's Scheduling Order 0.6 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 50.00 Excessive (minute order); reduced to nominal time. 2/8/2019 DAC 60 Drafted/reviewed joint notice of unsuccessful settlement discussions and need for discovery (Citibank NA) 0.8 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 400.00 $ 200.00 Excessive (1 paragraph notice); 50% reduction 2/12/2019 DAC 61 Drafted Motion to amend complaint and amended complaint 3.3 0.7 $ 500.00 $ 1,650.00 $ 350.00 Excessive and vague. 2/15/2019 Drafted stipulation to dismiss Equifax Information $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Services LLC Work $ DAC 62 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 2/18/2019 DAC Email communication with client regarding discovery responses to Citi and scheudling call to discuss 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 2/19/2019 DAC Met with client to discuss ROGS and RFP requests in detail 3 3.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1500.00 2/21/2019 Reviewed Order granting dismissal of Equifax Information Services LLC $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 63 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 2/28/2019 DAC 64 Reviewed sitpulation for Substitution of Parties by CitiBank NA. 0.8 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 400.00 $ 50.00 Excessive (one paragraph stipulation) and vague; reduced to nominal time. 3/1/2019 DAC 65 Reviewed order denying substitution of parties and ordering an amended complaint to name proper defendants and denying 0.5 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 50.00 Excessive and vague; reduced to nominal time. plaintiff's motion to amend as moot 3/1/2019 DAC 66 Drafted notice of service of discovery responses to Citibank NA 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 3/1/2019 DAC 67 Drafted supplemental discovery responses to Citibank NA & notice of serving same - worked with client and staff to complete 3 3.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1500.00 3/1/2019 DAC 68 Drafted Third Amended Complaint 1.3 1.3 $ 500.00 $ 650.00 $ 650.00 3/5/2019 Reviewed notice of waiver of electronic serviceby TransUnion LLC. $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 69 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 3/5/2019 DAC 70 Drafted/reviewed stipulation to dismiss Citibank, NA. and name CitiMortgage 0.6 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 150.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 3/6/2019 DAC 71 Reviewed order granting dismissal of Citibank, NA. 0.1 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 3/12/2019 72 $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC Reviewed order dismissing Equifax Information Services LLC 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 3/18/2019 DAC 73 Reviewed motion to dismiss by CitiMortgage, Inc. 2 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 3/20/2019 Reviewed notice of withdrawal of counsel for Equifax $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Information Services LLC Work $ DAC 74 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 3/20/2019 Reviewed order on motion to withdraw as counsel for Equifax Information Services, LLC $0 (Legal $ 0.00 Work $ DAC 75 0.1 0.1 Unrelated - To Citi) 3/21/2019 DAC 76 Drafted notice of Deposition of Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. 0.5 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 3/21/2019 DAC 77 Drafted initial discovery requests to CitiMortgage, Inc. 2.1 2.1 $ 500.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 1050.00 Page 4 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 24 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 3/28/2019 DAC 78 Drafted Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by CitiMortgage, Inc. - looked at case 2.2 2.2 $ 500.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 1100.00 law again before filing 4/2/2019 DAC 79 Reviewed Reply to Response to Motion to dismiss 3 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 500.00 Excessive and vague. 4/2/2019 DAC 80 Drafted responses to CitiMortgage Incorporated's first set of requests for production of documents 2.5 2.5 $ 500.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1250.00 4/5/2019 DAC Communication with Marshall regarding deployment for Army training and the effect of the same on the case 0.5 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 4/8/2019 DAC Email communication with Marshall regarding document production 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Vague; 50% reduction. 4/9/2019 DAC Email communication with Marshall regarding document production 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Vague; 50% reduction. 4/16/2019 DAC 81 Drafted/reviewed statement of Discovery Dispute 2.7 1.4 $ 500.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 675.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 4/19/2019 DAC Began preparation for 30(b)(6) depo of Citi. Reviewed docs and created base outline 4.4 4.4 $ 500.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 2200.00 4/20/2019 $ 2700.00 DAC Reviewed hundereds of pages of documents including detailed review of Citi's account notes over 5+ years for deposition 5.4 5.4 $ 500.00 $ 2,700.00 4/25/2019 DAC 82 Reviewed Order re: Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute denying Citi's request to quash notice of deposition 0.8 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 400.00 $ 50.00 Excessive and vague; reduced to nominal time. 4/25/2019 DAC 83 Drafted First Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 4/26/2019 DAC Recieved notice of non-appearance of Citi at scheduled 30(b)(6) depo 0.7 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. 4/26/2019 DAC 84 Reviewed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's discovery requests by CitiMortgage Incorporated. 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 5/7/2019 DAC 85 Drafted response in opposition to motion for Extension of Time 2.3 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 500.00 Excessive 5/8/2019 DAC 86 Reviewed order denying as moot Citi's Motion for Extension of Time and requiring Citi to submit the discovery dispute as a 1.8 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 900.00 $ 50.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. joint statement in accordance with the rules. 5/17/2019 DAC 87 Reviewed motion for extension of time to complete party depositions by CitiMortgage Incorporated 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 5/17/2019 DAC Email communication with client regarding discovery responses to Citi's requests 0.6 0.6 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 5/20/2019 DAC Email communication with client regarding credit denials and document production 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 5/20/2019 DAC 88 Reviewed Order granting Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.'s Motion for extension 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 5/29/2019 DAC 89 Drafted/reviewed joint statement of discovery dispute 1.4 0.7 $ 500.00 $ 700.00 $ 350.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 5/31/2019 DAC Email communication with client regarding case status and setting up meeting 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 6/3/2019 DAC 90 Reviewed Minute Order reseting interim status conference 0.1 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 6/4/2019 DAC Email communication with client regarding ACR credit report pull 0.1 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 6/5/2019 DAC 91 Reviewed notice of Deposition of Marshall Gross, filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated 0.4 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 6/5/2019 DAC 92 Drafted Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. 1 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 6/6/2019 DAC 93 Reviewed Amended Notice of Deposition Gross, filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 6/7/2019 Reviewed order denying CitiMortgage's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, denying pending joint statement of $ 250.00 Excessive DAC 94 discovery dispute as moot, and ordering 2 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 that parties meet and confer regarding ongoing discovery dispute 6/12/2019 DAC 95 Drafted Notice of Appearance by Beth Findsen 0.1 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 6/13/2019 DAC 96 Reviewed Second Amended Notice of Deposition of Marshall Gross, filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated. 0.4 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 6/13/2019 DAC Prepared draft protective order received version from Defendant and reviewed. 2.4 1.2 $ 500.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 600.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 6/14/2019 DAC 97 Reviewed/edited stipulated motion for protective order, filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated 0.6 0.6 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 300.00 6/16/2019 DAC Revised outline for Deposition of Citi corp rep 3.2 1.6 $ 500.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 800.00 Vague; 50% reduction. 6/17/2019 DAC 98 Drafted Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery 0.5 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 100.00 Excessive 6/17/2019 DAC 99 Drafted statement of discovery dispute 1.9 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 950.00 $ 475.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 6/18/2019 DAC 100 Reviewed order granting Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery 0.1 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 6/18/2019 DAC Reviewed documents for deposition of CitiMortgage - 30(b)(6) 6.7 3.4 $ 500.00 $ 3,350.00 $ 1675.00 Vague; 50% reduction. 6/19/2019 DAC 101 Reveiwed entered protective order 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 6/19/2019 DAC Prepared for and conducted 30(b)(6) depo of Citi 7.6 7.6 $ 500.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 3800.00 6/19/2019 DAC Email communication with client regarding mortgage statement for new home 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 6/19/2019 DAC Email communication with client regarding closing documents for new home showing increased interest rate 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 6/19/2019 DAC 102 Reviewed order requiring party briefing on discovery dispute 0.7 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; reduced to nominal time. 6/20/2019 DAC Prepared client for his upcoming deposition later that day 2.2 2.2 $ 500.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 1100.00 6/20/2019 BETH F. Defended deposition of Marshall Gross 4.3 4.3 $ 500.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 2150.00 6/21/2019 DAC Email communication with opposing counsel regarding discovery dispute 0.7 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 175.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 6/21/2019 DAC 103 Drafted responses to CitiMortgage, Inc.;s first requests for production of documents and notice regarding same 5.3 5.3 $ 500.00 $ 2,650.00 $ 2650.00 Page 5 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 25 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 6/21/2019 DAC 104 Drafted supplemental MIDP responses and notice regarding same 2.4 2.4 $ 500.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1200.00 6/25/2019 DAC 105 Drafted court-ordered brief regarding parties' discovery dispute 4.5 2.0 $ 500.00 $ 2,250.00 $ 1000.00 Excessive. 6/28/2019 DAC 106 Reviewed CitiMortgage Inc's response to Plaintiff's brief regarding parties' discovery dispute 2 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 500.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 7/1/2019 Consulted with Expert regarding facts of the case. Reviewed documents and discussed general report criteria $ 1100.00 DAC 2.2 2.2 $ 500.00 $ 1,100.00 7/5/2019 DAC 107 Drafted supplemental MIDP responses and notice regarding same 1.4 1.4 $ 500.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 7/9/2019 DAC Reviewed documents produced by Citi - ACDV and AUD procedures manuals 2.9 2.9 $ 500.00 $ 1,450.00 $ 1450.00 7/10/2019 DAC Email communication with OC regarding joint statement of discovery dispute 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 7/10/2019 DAC Further email communication with OC regarding joint statement of discovery dispute 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 7/11/2019 DAC Email regarding discovery disptue with OC 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 7/11/2019 DAC 108 Drafted/reviewed statement of Discovery Dispute filed by Defendant CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.4 1.4 $ 500.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 7/11/2019 DAC Email regarding discovery disptue with OC 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction Reviewed order granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's discovery disputeeteuteputesputeisputedispute disputey $ 200.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction disputery disputeery disputevery disputeovery requests and ordering a meet and confer regarding reasonable fees for counsel's 7/19/2019 attempts to schedule 30(b)(6) depositions and a meet and confer regarding Citimortgage's production of documents and a meet and confer regarding the extension of any discovery deadlines DAC 109 0.8 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 400.00 7/22/2019 DAC Reviewed preliminary expert report. Provided comments to expert regarding need for additional analysis 3.7 3.7 $ 500.00 $ 1,850.00 $ 1850.00 7/24/2019 DAC Email exhanges with OC regarding meet and confer following order on motion to compel discovery 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 7/24/2019 DAC Researched caselaw on discovery issues and possible motion for sanctions 2.7 2.7 $ 500.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 1350.00 7/28/2019 DAC Thoroughly reviewed expert report for completeness and punctuation 2.3 2.3 $ 500.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 1150.00 7/29/2019 DAC 110 Drafted Rule 26(a)(2) Expert Disclosure and notice regarding the same 0.7 0.1 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 50.00 Excessive and vague; reduced to nominal time. Communication with OC re: expert disclosure including $ 125.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 7/29/2019 DAC 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 providing a copy of the report 7/30/2019 DAC Email exchange with OC regarding rebuttal report extension 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 7/31/2019 DAC 111 Drafted supplemental MIDP responses and notice regarding same 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 7/31/2019 DAC Received and reviewed $7,500 settlement offer which was intended to include all of Plaintiff's fees and costs to date - discussed 0.7 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 0.00 Duplicative of next entry, or not enough detail to distinguish tasks. with client and rejected Awarded larger of two entries. Phone call with Marshall (on military assignment but had a break and was able to call and discuss case). Discussed current $ 1200.00 status of case and upcoming discovery. Discussed Citi's $7,500, which had been submitted after substantial discovery including depositions and expert costs, and thus would have been insufficient to cover the costs of the case. Coordinated receipt of all mortgage docs for further disclosure and evidence of additional damages 7/31/2019 DAC 2.4 2.4 $ 500.00 $ 1,200.00 8/1/-8/5/2019 DAC Multiple emails re: settlement and ongoing discovery ext. 1 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 0.00 Excessive and too vague to assess reasonableness. 8/6/2019 DAC Received and reviewed subpoena from OC to Starboard mortgage discussed with client 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; 50% reduction to account for "review." 8/7/2019 DAC 112 Reviewed unilateral statement of Discovery Dispute filed by Defendant CitiMortgage Incorporated 0.7 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 100.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. 8/8/2019 DAC 113 Drafted response to unilateral statement of Discovery Dispute filed by Defendant CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.5 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 750.00 $ 100.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. 8/12/2019 DAC Received expert disclosure from OC 1.7 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. To the extent this entry covers review, review is duplicative with next entry. 8/13/2019 DAC reviewed Def. Expert disclosure and discussed w/our expert 2.5 2.5 $ 500.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 1250.00 8/19/2019 DAC 114 Reviewed order granting extension of deadlines and resetting Rule 16 Status conference 0.6 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. $ 1100.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; 50% reduction to 9/4/2019 DAC Received email from OC with Starboard responsive docs. Reviewed the file - 431 pages 4.4 2.2 $ 500.00 $ 2,200.00 account for "review." 9/5/2019 DAC 115 Drafted motion for attorneys' fees 4.7 2.4 $ 500.00 $ 2,350.00 $ 1175.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 9/19/2019 DAC 116 Reviewed response to motion for attorneys' fees including legal research 2.3 1.2 $ 500.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 575.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 9/20/2019 DAC Email with co-counsel regarding OC declaration in discovery fee motion 0.4 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 9/25/2019 DAC Discussion with co-counsel regarding reply to discovery fee mtn 0.5 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 9/26/2019 DAC 117 Drafted reply to response to motion for attorneys' fees 3 3.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1500.00 9/30/2019 DAC Received and review Defendant's expert rebuttal report 3.2 1.6 $ 500.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 800.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. Reduced by 50% to account for review. $ 200.00 10/23-24/2019 DAC Discussion with OC regarding dates for expert depos 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 10/28/2019 DAC Emails with OC regarding expert fee/payment for depo time 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 Page 6 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 26 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 10/29/2019 DAC 118 Reviewed Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff's Expert 0.1 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 Excessive 10/30/2019 DAC Received exhibit from OC (expert report). Reviewed report in preparation for depo of Evan Hendricks and discussed upcoming 3.2 1.6 $ 500.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 800.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. Review of expert depo with Expert report seems duplicative with prior entries; 50% reduction. 10/31/2019 DAC Defended Deposition of Evan Hendicks 2.7 2.7 $ 500.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 1350.00 11/5/2019 DAC 119 Drafted/reviewed joint status report 0.5 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 11/5/2019 DAC Email/call regarding joint status report due to the court 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 11/5/2019 DAC emailed added portions to the Joint Status report 0.4 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 0.00 Excessive and too vague to assess reasonableness. 11/12/2019 BETH F. Prepared for and appeared at District Court for status conference 2.1 2.1 $ 500.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 1050.00 11/12/2019 DAC 120 Reveiwed minute entry for status conference continuing deadlines. (Beth Findsen appearing for Plaintiff) 0.1 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 50.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 11/13/2019 DAC 121 Reviewed order awarding Plaintiff Attorneys' Fees. 0.8 0.2 $ 500.00 $ 400.00 $ 100.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. 12/1/2019 DAC Started drafting MSJ. Statement of facts and reviewing exhibits for use in MSJ 5.9 3.0 $ 500.00 $ 2,950.00 $ 1475.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/2/2019 BETH F. Reviewed initial draft of partial MSJ. Provided feedback and edits 3 3.0 $ 500.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1500.00 12/3/2019 DAC Reviewed comments/edits by Beth. Continued work on motion 3.1 1.6 $ 500.00 $ 1,550.00 $ 775.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/6/2019 DAC internal emails regarding Plaintiff's patial MSJ 0.6 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 300.00 $ 150.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/7/2019 DAC more internal communication with drafts of MSJ 0.5 0.3 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 125.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/7/2019 BETH F. Reviewed draft and provided feedback 1.7 1.7 $ 500.00 $ 850.00 $ 850.00 12/8/2020 DAC Working on motion for summary judgment - reviewed additional authority 2.7 1.4 $ 500.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 675.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/11/2019 DAC additional emails with continued drafts of MSJ for Plaintiff 0.5 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 0.00 Too vague to assess reasonableness. 12/13/2019 DAC Finalized MSJ for filing. Final formatting and edits for style/grammer 2.2 2.2 $ 500.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 1100.00 12/16/2019 DAC 122 Reviewed motion for summary judgment by CitiMortgage Incorporated - analyzed cited authority 5 2.5 $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1250.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/16/2019 DAC 123 Reviewed statement of facts filed in support of motion for summary judgment by Defendant CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.9 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 950.00 $ 475.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/16/2019 DAC 124 Reviewed declaration of Counsel in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant CitiMortgage Incorporated 0.5 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 $ 250.00 12/16/2019 DAC 125 Pulled and organized documents for finalized MSJ, sent to staff for filing 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 12/16/2019 DAC 126 Pulled and organized documents for finalized statement of facts in support of motion for partial summary judgment, sent to 0.4 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 200.00 $ 200.00 staff for filing 12/16/2019 DAC Email communication regarding exhibits for MSJ to confirm proper exhibits includes review of exhibits 1.4 0.7 $ 500.00 $ 700.00 $ 350.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/16/2019 DAC Conducted additional research regarding MSJ Supplemental Statement of Facts, emailed co-counsel regarding same 0.7 0.4 $ 500.00 $ 350.00 $ 175.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. The rest is excessive 12/16/2019 DAC Recevied and reviewed email communication with Citi's MSJ 0.5 0.0 $ 500.00 $ 250.00 and too vague to assess reasonableness. 12/19/2019 DAC Continued review of authority cited to and relied on by Citi in support of MSJ. Read cases and researched for any negative 4.4 2.2 $ 500.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 1100.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction treatment. 12/24/2019 DAC prepared skeleton outline for opposition for order of arguments only 1.3 1.3 $ 500.00 $ 650.00 $ 650.00 12/27/2019 BETH F. Discussion with David regarding Citi's MSJ and reply arguments 1 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 12/27/2019 DAC Discussion with Beth regarding cases cited by Citi and areas of attack 1 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 1/5/2020 DAC Began substantive work on opposition to MSJ. Reviewed documents and testimony cited by Def. 6 3.0 $ 550.00 $ 3,300.00 $ 1650.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 1/8/2020 DAC Continued to work on oppositoin to MSJ. Reviewed depo transcripts and expert reports. Continued to form opp. arguments 5.5 2.8 $ 550.00 $ 3,025.00 $ 1512.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 1/14/2020 DAC Completed opposition to MSJ. Made additional organization of argument modifications to brief and rewrote sections for better 5 2.5 $ 550.00 $ 2,750.00 $ 1375.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction flow 1/15/2020 DAC 127 Pulled and organized document for finalized MSJ opposition, sent to staff for filing 0.4 0.4 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 220.00 1/15/2020 Initial Review of response to motion for partial summary judgment $ 770.00 DAC 128 1.4 1.4 $ 550.00 $ 770.00 filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated 1/15/2020 DAC 129 Initial review of statement of facts filed in support of motion response to motion for partial summary judgment filed by 1 1.0 $ 550.00 $ 550.00 $ 550.00 CitiMortgage Incorporated 1/15/2020 DAC Discussion with Beth regarding SSOF and whether to re-file it 0.5 0.5 $ 550.00 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 1/15/2020 BETH F. Discussion with David regarding SSOF 0.5 0.5 $ 525.00 $ 262.50 $ 262.50 1/22/2020 DAC Began research on cases relied on by Citi in opp to Plaintiff's MSJ 3.4 1.7 $ 550.00 $ 1,870.00 $ 935.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 1/23/2020 DAC Started initial draft of Reply brief 2.7 1.4 $ 550.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 742.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 1/24/2020 BETH F. Reviewed initial draft of Reply to Citi's opp. Provided track changes and comments to DAC 2 2.0 $ 525.00 $ 1,050.00 $ 1050.00 1/25/2020 DAC Continued work on Reply brief. Incorporated some of Beth's comments. Performed additional research on cited authority 4.3 2.2 $ 550.00 $ 2,365.00 $ 1182.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction Page 7 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 27 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 1/26/2020 BETH F. Reviewed Reply by DAC. Provided substantive edits to put into final form for filing and final review by DAC 3 3.0 $ 525.00 $ 1,575.00 $ 1575.00 1/28/2020 DAC Prepared controverting statement of facts 2.2 2.2 $ 550.00 $ 1,210.00 $ 1210.00 1/29/2020 DAC Made final edits of Reply and controverting statement of fact, final read through of both 1.5 1.5 $ 550.00 $ 825.00 $ 825.00 1/30/2020 DAC 130 Pulled and organized documents for finalized reply to response to motion for partial summary judgment, sent to staff for filing 0.4 0.4 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 220.00 1/30/2020 Pulled and organized documents for finalized controverting statement of facts in support of reply to response to motion for $ 220.00 DAC 131 partial summary judgment, sent 0.4 0.4 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 to staff for filing 1/30/2020 DAC 132 Reviewed reply to response to motion for summary judgment filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated 2.7 1.4 $ 550.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 742.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 2/3/2020 DAC 133 Reviewed motion to strike Statement of Facts by CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.2 0.6 $ 550.00 $ 660.00 $ 330.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 2/10/2020 DAC 134 Drafted response to motion to strike Statement of Facts 2.5 2.5 $ 550.00 $ 1,375.00 $ 1375.00 2/18/2020 DAC Emails with OC regarding payment of sanction 0.1 0.1 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 55.00 2/23/2020 DAC Internal emails regarding trial prep. MIL discussion and preparation of pretrial documents 0.5 0.5 $ 550.00 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 2/23/2020 DAC Received and reviewed email with court's instructions re: pretrial docs. 0.4 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. The rest is excessive and too vague to assess reasonableness. 3/2/2020 DAC Internal emails regarding court's instructions and the need for meet and confer with OC 0.4 0.4 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 220.00 3/2/2020 DAC Reviewed courts order allowing 30 days following ruling on dispositive motions before pretrial docs need to be filed 0.1 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 3/9/2020 DAC Email with OC regarding pretrial docs and the court's order 0.4 0.2 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 110.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 4/30/2020 DAC reviewed decision and determined appropriateness of providing to the court as supplement authority in support of Plaintiff's 2 1.0 $ 550.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 550.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction MSJ 4/30/2020 DAC 135 Pulled docs and submitted to staff for filing a notice re: supplemental authority to motion for partial summary judgment 0.4 0.4 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 220.00 5/5/2020 DAC 136 Reviewed response to notice: re: supplemental authority 0.8 0.4 $ 550.00 $ 440.00 $ 220.00 6/10/2020 DAC Followed up w/OC regarding non-payment of court ordered sanction 0.1 0.1 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 55.00 6/12/2020 DAC Confirmed lack of payment of sanction and Directed staff to send another email follow up to OC regarding payment of court 0.5 0.3 $ 550.00 $ 275.00 $ 137.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction ordered sanction 6/18/2020 DAC Received and reviewed email from OC confirming covid related issues with mailing sanction check 0.1 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. The rest is excessive and too vague to assess reasonableness. 7/7/2020 DAC Followed up with OC regarding lack of payment of sanction 0.1 0.1 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 55.00 9/25/2020 DAC Received and reviewed email from OC confirming that he would mail the check re: court ordered sanction 0.1 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. The review is excessive. 10/8/2020 Reviewed order granting in part and denying in part CitiMortgage's Motion to Strike, denying Plaintiff's motion for summary $ 742.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction judgment, granting CitiMortgage's motion DAC 137 for summary judgment and directing the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in favor of CitiMortgage and against Gross, and to 2.7 1.4 $ 550.00 $ 1,485.00 close the case. 10/8/2020 DAC 138 Reviewed Clerk's Judgment 0.1 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 10/8/2020 DAC Received and reviewed email from ECF granting Def MSJ. Pulled and reviewed court documents 0.4 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. Review is duplicative with previous entries. 10/8/2020 DAC Internal emails/discussions re: MSJ order and scheduling strategy meeting 2.7 0.5 $ 550.00 $ 1,485.00 $ 275.00 Excessive and vague. 10/9/2020 DAC Internal discussions via email/phone re: whether to file motion to reconsider - decided against it 0.5 0.5 $ 550.00 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 10/16/2020 DAC Internal discussion via email/phone re: appeal. Thorough review of cross MSJs, the Court's order denying Citi's MTD, and 1.8 0.9 $ 550.00 $ 990.00 $ 495.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. contrary opinion granting Citi's MSJ 11/2/2020 DAC 139 Drafted Notice of appeal to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 0.4 0.4 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 220.00 11/2/2020 DAC USCA Reviewed USCA notice to counsel 0.4 0.2 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 110.00 Excessive; 50% reduction : 1-2 11/2/2020 DAC USCA Reviewed USCA mediation letter 0.1 0.1 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 55.00 : 1-3 11/2/2020 DAC USCA Reviewed USCA attorney introduction letter 0.1 0.1 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 55.00 : 1-4 11/2/2020 DAC Reviewed and approved filing of Notice of Appeal 0.4 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 0.00 Duplicative with prior entry. 11/3/2020 DAC USCA Reviewed and filed USCA Docketing Letter and Briefing Schedule 0.5 0.5 $ 550.00 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 : 1-4; 140 Page 8 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 28 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 11/3/2020 DAC Internal emails/discussions regarding briefing schedule entered by the 9th circuit and mediaion questionnaire 0.7 0.7 $ 550.00 $ 385.00 $ 385.00 11/5/2020 DAC USCA Drafted Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire Response 0.5 0.5 $ 550.00 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 :2 11/5/2020 DAC Reviewed mediation questionnaire with co-cousnel and approved filing 0.8 0.8 $ 550.00 $ 440.00 $ 440.00 11/10/2020 DAC Internal discussion regarding confidentiality of mediation documents and appropriate handling of the same 0.7 0.7 $ 550.00 $ 385.00 $ 385.00 11/12/2020 DAC USCA Reviewed Order Assigning Assessment Conference 0.1 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. :4 11/17/2020 DAC USCA Reviewed Order Scheduling Assessment Conference 0.1 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 55.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. :5 12/17/2020 DAC Appeared at 9th Circuit mediation assessment call. Emailed OC who did not appear for the call. 0.7 0.7 $ 550.00 $ 385.00 $ 385.00 12/17/2020 DAC Emails with OC re: benefits of the mediation. Agreed to continue and participate. 0.4 0.4 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 220.00 12/17/2020 DAC Emails rescheduling mediation for 1/13/20 0.4 0.0 $ 550.00 $ 220.00 $ 0.00 Duplicative with prior entry, or not enough detail to distinguish. 1/3/2021 DAC discussion with associates and partners regarding Appellate strategy 1.4 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 910.00 $ 455.00 Vague; 50% reduction. 1/4/2021 DAC Review MSJ motions and Court's order. Considered best arguments to attack prior positions and court's ruling 5 2.5 $ 650.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 1625.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 1/5/2021 DAC Reviewed case law and looked for new supporting case law based on court's ruling. Reviewed evidence in the record to 5.2 1.0 $ 650.00 $ 3,380.00 $ 650.00 Excessive and too vague to assess reasonableness. provide better cites to court of appeals 1/6/2021 DAC Began skeleton brief of Appeal. Spoke to colleagues about amicus briefing 2.9 1.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,885.00 $ 942.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 1/11/2021 DAC Requested extenion of time to file brief (USCA Streamlined Request) 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 1/11/2021 DAC Request for opening brief extension 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 1/12/2021 DAC Reviewed approval of extension of time to file brief (USCA Streamlined Request) 0.4 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 65.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. 1/19/2021 DAC Mediation call with 9th Circuit panel mediator 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 2/3/2021 DAC 9th circuit mediator call to encourage continued settlement discussion 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 2/8/2021 DAC 9th circuit mediator call to encourage continued settlement discussion 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 2/16/2021 DAC Attended telephonic assessment conference with mediator 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 2/16/2021 DAC Internal email communication regarding unsuccessful mediation and strategy moving forward with the appeal 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 455.00 $ 455.00 2/16/2021 DAC Began substantive review of case law for opening Appellate brief and outlining 7.1 3.6 $ 650.00 $ 4,615.00 $ 2307.50 Excessive; too vague with respect to "beginning review"; 50% reduction. 2/17/2021 DAC Drafted intitial introductory section outlining factual history/procedural posture 4.4 4.4 $ 650.00 $ 2,860.00 $ 2860.00 2/17/2021 DAC Internal review of collected case law contrary to MSJ order. Internal email communiocation with associates regarding further 6.8 3.4 $ 650.00 $ 4,420.00 $ 2210.00 Excessive; 50% reduction. case law research needed 2/19/2021 DAC Reviewed emailed exhibits needed for appellate brief 2.5 2.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,625.00 $ 1625.00 3/4/2021 DAC Received and reviewed email re: call from CFPB re: Gross appeal 0.4 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 65.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; reduced to nominal time 3/5/2021 DAC USCA Drafted motion for extension of time to file opening brief, sent to staff for filing 0.5 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 325.00 $ 162.50 Excessive; 50% reduction : 13-1 3/5/2021 DAC Discussed in detail 9th Circuit brief with CFPB attorney 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 455.00 $ 455.00 3/5/2021 DAC Emailed OC re: final 30 day extension to file brief 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 3/8/2021 DAC USCA Reviewed order granting motion for extension of time to file opening brief 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. : 14 3/10/2021 DAC Conducted arbitrator settlement discussions 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 455.00 $ 455.00 3/10/2021 DAC Email communication with CFPB re: decision on Amicus brief 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 260.00 4/9/2021 DAC Received and reviewed email regarding index volume for brief 0.7 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 455.00 $ 227.50 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; reduced by 50% to account for review. 4/12/2021 DAC USCA Pulled and organized documents for finalized Appellant's Opening Brief, sent to staff for filing 3.3 3.3 $ 650.00 $ 2,145.00 $ 2145.00 : 15 4/12/2021 DAC USCA Pulled and organized documents for finalized Appellant's Excerpts of Record Index and Excerpts of Record Volumes 1-5, sent 2.8 2.8 $ 650.00 $ 1,820.00 $ 1820.00 : 16-6 to staff for filing 4/14/2021 DAC Discussion with staff regarding appeal and reply brief for timely handling of work 0.8 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 520.00 $ 0.00 Excessive and too vague to assess reasonableness. Page 9 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 29 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 4/14/2021 DAC USCA Reviewed Order requiring copies and excerpts to be mailed to USCA 0.4 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 65.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. : 17 4/19/2021 DAC USCA Reviewed Amicus Curiae Brief filed by Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 260.00 : 18 4/19/2021 DAC Received and reviewed email communication from CFPB notifying intent to file Amicus brief 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. The review is excessive. 4/19/2021 DAC Communicated with CFPB to share excerpts of record 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 260.00 4/19/2021 DAC Received and reviewed email from CFPB with copy of Amicus Brief/Reviewed brief in detail including authority cited therein 5.4 1.0 $ 650.00 $ 3,510.00 $ 650.00 Excessive 5/6/2021 DAC Spoke to OC regarding ext to file answering brief 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 6/25/2021 DAC USCA Reviewed Appellee's Answering Brief, including case law cited therein 4.9 2.5 $ 650.00 $ 3,185.00 $ 1592.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. : 28 6/27/2021 DAC Began drafting skeleton Reply in support of Appellant's Brief 6.7 3.4 $ 650.00 $ 4,355.00 $ 2177.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. Thorough review of case law in Appellee's Answering Brief, application of the same to facts at issue, distinguished such case $ 2502.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 6/28/2021 DAC law, collected case law in opposition to the 7.7 3.9 $ 650.00 $ 5,005.00 same, included research in Reply brief 6/29/2021 DAC Continued to work on reply brief. Sent to Nemer Hadous for review/input 5.4 2.7 $ 650.00 $ 3,510.00 $ 1755.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 6/30/2021 NEMER H. Reviewed reply brief made edits. Discussed with DAC possibility of noticing on to the case for trial in the event of reversal 3.5 1.8 $ 650.00 $ 2,275.00 $ 1137.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 7/1/2021 DAC Completed Reply brief and submitted to team for final thoughts/input 7.1 3.6 $ 650.00 $ 4,615.00 $ 2307.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 7/14/2021 DAC USCA Drafted Appellant's Motion to Exceed the Type-Volume Limitation, sent to staff for filing 1.2 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 780.00 $ 195.00 Excessive. : 32 7/14/2021 DAC USCA Pulled and organized documents for finalized Appellant's Reply Brief, sent to staff for filing 1.2 1.2 $ 650.00 $ 780.00 $ 780.00 : 33 7/15/2021 DAC USCA Reviewed Order requiring copies and excerpts to be mailed to USCA 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. : 35 9/5/2021 DAC Reviewed docket entry setting oral argument 0.4 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 9/15/2021 DAC Strategy communication via email with CFPB about sharing time for 9th Cir oral argument 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 325.00 $ 325.00 9/20/2021 DAC Strategy communication via email with CFPB regarding enlargement of time at oral argument, or in the alternative 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 260.00 relinquishing time for CFPB attorney 9/22/2021 DAC Drafted acknowledgement of hearing notice 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 260.00 9/27/2021 DAC Further strategy communication via email with CFPB regarding time of oral argument 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 260.00 $ 260.00 10/20/2021 DAC Reviewed Amicus Curiae Consumer Financial Protection Bureau request to participate in oral argument 1.4 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 910.00 $ 0.00 Excessive and vague; reviewing and discussing CFPB's request to participate in oral argument is duplicated in above entries. 10/21/2021 DAC Reviewed order granting Amicus Curiae Consumer Financial Protection Bureau request to participate in oral argument 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 11/10/2021 DAC USCA Reviewed letter to USCA from CitiMortgage Incorporated regarding supplemental authority and withdrawing Article III 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 65.00 $ 65.00 : 48 standing argument 11/11/2021 DAC Reviewed the record and initial read through of Appellate brief in preparation for oral argument. Took outline/notes 5.1 2.6 $ 650.00 $ 3,315.00 $ 1657.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/12/2021 DAC Looked through depo testimony and reviewed defendants authority for oral argument 5.7 2.9 $ 650.00 $ 3,705.00 $ 1852.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/18/2021 DAC Setup mock appellate oral argument with staff/associates to ask questions/interruptions. Reviewed reply brief in preparation 4 2.0 $ 650.00 $ 2,600.00 $ 1300.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/19/2021 DAC Finalized oral argument outline and rehearsed argument for mock session 3.3 3.3 $ 650.00 $ 2,145.00 $ 2145.00 11/20/2021 DAC Preparation for oral argument (drafting and redrafting opening statement, mock panel sessions with co-counsel, pitfal 5 2.5 $ 650.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 1625.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. brainstorm sessions, judicial research, etc.) 11/20/2021 NEMER H. Preparation for oral argument (drafting and redrafting opening statement, mock panel sessions with co-counsel, pitfal 5 2.5 $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 1250.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. brainstorm sessions, judicial research, etc.) 11/20/2021 MY III Prepared for and participated in mock oral argument session with managing partner/Nick Hadous 5 2.5 $ 275.00 $ 1,375.00 $ 687.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/21/2021 DAC Reviewed outline and performed Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit 1.8 0.9 $ 650.00 $ 1,170.00 $ 585.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. Page 10 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 30 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 4/18/2022 DAC USCA Reviewed letter to USCA from CitiMortgage Incorporated regarding supplemental authority 0.4 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 0.00 Duplicative with following entry, or not enough detail to : 52-1 distinguish. 4/18/2022 DAC Received reviewed letter of supp authority filed by OC 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 4/28/2022 DAC Discussed response to supp authority with co-counsel 1.2 0.6 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 390.00 Duplicative with following entry, which additionally includes research and report. Reduced by 50% to account for redundancy. 4/28/2022 MY III Discussed response to supp authority with managing partner, conducted research regarding the same, submitted research report 1.2 1.2 $ 275.00 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 4/29/2022 DAC USCA Drafted letter to USCA in response to notice of supplemental authority sent by CitiMortgage Incorporated 3 1.5 $ 650.00 $ 2,175.00 $ 975.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. : 53 5/16/2022 DAC USCA Reviewed Opinion of USCA reversing lower court judgment and remanding for further proceedings 1.1 1.1 $ 650.00 $ 797.50 $ 715.00 : 55-1 5/16/2022 DAC Received and reviewed email copy of the 9th circuits opinion and order 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 0.00 Duplicative with previous entry; excessive. 5/16/2022 DAC Prepared summary explanation of 9th circuit opinion, forwarded the same to the firm and other consumer attorneys 1.5 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 1,087.50 $ 0.00 Not sufficiently related to case. 5/16/2022 DAC Prepared client summary of the 9th circuit's decision, forwarded the same to client 1 1.0 $ 650.00 $ 725.00 $ 650.00 5/31/2022 DAC USCA Reviewed CitiMortgage Inc.'s Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 455.00 : 56-1 5/31/2022 DAC Discussed possible reply 0.5 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 0.00 Too vague to assess reasonableness. 6/1/2022 DAC Conducted review of 9th Cir. Procedures to determine whether we could respond to request for rehearing or en banc review 0.6 0.6 $ 650.00 $ 435.00 $ 390.00 Reveiwed order denying petition for rehearing and advising that the panel's Opinion had been submitted to the full 9th Circuit $ 650.00 $ 65.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. USCA 6/23/2022 DAC USCA and that no judge requested a vote 0.4 0.1 $ 290.00 : 58 on rehearing en benc under Fed. R. App. 35 7/1/2022 DAC 142 Reviewed Mandate of USCA, pulled the same and sent to staff for filing 0.4 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 65.00 Excessive and vague; reduced to nominal time. 7/5/2022 DAC Reviewed Fed. R. App. Proc. 41 and confirmed process going forward after mandate filing 0.6 0.6 $ 650.00 $ 435.00 $ 390.00 8/12/2022 DAC 143 Reviewed order setting Interim Status Conference and requiring that the parties meet and confer and file a Joint Status Report 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 8/13/2022 DAC Began review of all discovery including depositions transcripts and written responses/document production to prepare for 6.3 3.2 $ 650.00 $ 4,567.50 $ 2047.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. status conference and possible trial setting 8/14/2022 DAC Read depo of Evan Hendricks and his report. Reviewed in light of 9th circuit's opinion 3.1 1.6 $ 650.00 $ 2,247.50 $ 1007.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 8/14/2022 DAC Discussed 9th cir. opinion with expert and his availability for trial 1.3 1.3 $ 650.00 $ 942.50 $ 845.00 8/15/2022 DAC Email communicoation to OC regarding call/joint report 0.4 0.2 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 130.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 8/16/2022 DAC reviewed and sent separate email to OC regarding M&C - no response from OC on 8/15 0.5 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 162.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 8/16/2022 DAC Reviewed response from OC - scheduled time to speak on 8/22 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 8/17/2022 DAC 144 Reviewed order vacating and resetting Interim Status Conference 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 0.00 Excessive. 8/19/2022 Discovery review for trial prep. (reviewing Citi account notes). Discussed with associates the possibility of requesting $ 650.00 $ 1137.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. DAC 3.5 1.8 $ 2,537.50 additional discovery re: Citi's investigation following 9th Cir. ruling 8/19/2022 NEMER H. Discussed discovery with DAC. Decided against making a formal request to reopen 1.4 1.4 $ 500.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 8/20/2022 DAC Reviewed prior Citi 30(b)(6) depo transcript. Identified some account notes that contradicted testimony. Reviewed Plaintiff's 4.1 2.1 $ 650.00 $ 2,972.50 $ 1332.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. depo 8/22/2022 DAC Conducted meet and confer with opposing counsel 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 325.00 8/22/2022 DAC Reviewed draft joint status report, sent to OC 0.6 0.6 $ 650.00 $ 435.00 $ 390.00 8/22/2022 DAC Received and reviewed revisions to Joint status report from OC 0.4 0.2 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 130.00 "Received" takes no time and is ambiguous. 50% reduction to account for review. 8/23/2022 DAC 145 Final review and filing of status report 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 260.00 8/30/2022 DAC 146 Reviewed order vacating and resetting Interim Status Conference 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 9/16/2022 DAC 147 Drafted motion for leave to appear telephonically at interim conference 0.4 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 65.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. 9/19/2022 DAC 148 Reviewed order granting leave to appear teleponically 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 9/19/2022 DAC 149 Reviewed Motion to amend scheduling order by CitiMortgage Incorporated. 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 325.00 9/20/2022 DAC 150 Reviewed order vacating and resetting Interim Status Conference 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 Page 11 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 31 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 9/20/2022 151 Attended telephonic status conference. Reviewed minute entry for Interum Status Conference and order denying motion to $ 650.00 $ 520.00 amend scheduling order to file a motion for DAC summary judgment and reopening discovery and requiring the parties to meet and confer and file a proposed scheduling order 0.8 0.8 $ 580.00 9/21/2022 DAC Conducted litigation team strategy meeting regarding expedited discovery track 2.7 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,957.50 $ 325.00 Excessive and vague 9/21/2022 NEMER H. Attended strategy meeting re: reopened discovery 2.7 0.5 $ 500.00 $ 1,350.00 $ 250.00 Excessive and vague 9/21/2022 MY III Attended strategy meeting re: reopened discovery 2.7 0.5 $ 275.00 $ 742.50 $ 137.50 Excessive and vague 9/21/2022 DAC 152 Reviewed order assigning case to Magistrate Judge Michael T. Contact Judge Morrissey for the purpose of conducting a 0.8 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 580.00 $ 0.00 Excessive for one page order. To the extent "review" covers settlement conference scheduling, that is duplicative with subsequent entries. 9/21/2022 DAC Discussed reopened discovery with client 1 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 725.00 $ 325.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 9/22/2022 DAC 153 Drafted expedited written discovery requests and notice regarding same 2 2.0 $ 650.00 $ 1,450.00 $ 1300.00 9/22/2022 DAC Send email communication to OC regarding 30+ day reopening of discovery and new discovery responses and deadlines 0.5 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 162.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 9/22/2022 DAC Received and reviewed response from OC re: discovery plan/dates/deadlines 0.8 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 580.00 $ 260.00 "Received" takes no time and is ambiguous. 50% reduction to account for review. 9/26/2022 DAC Prepared for and met and conferred with opposing counsel regarding discovery needed and scheduling order 1.5 1.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,087.50 $ 975.00 9/26/2022 DAC Prepared proposed scheduling order 0.6 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 435.00 $ 195.00 Excessive 9/26/2022 DAC Prepared for and had call with OC regarding discovery needed and agreement 1.2 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 0.00 Duplicative with prior entry; awarded larger of two entries. 9/26/2022 DAC Discussion with team/email to chambers re: scheduling a settlement conference with Judge Morrissey 0.7 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 227.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 9/27/2022 DAC Call with OC regarding call to Judge Morrissey's chambers. Called and scheduled settlement conference. 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 455.00 9/27/2022 DAC Email communication with Magistrate's chambers re: scheduling zoom conference 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 260.00 9/27/2022 DAC Discussed motion to continue trial deadlines and request to move trial date to allow time to complete settlement conference 0.6 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 435.00 $ 195.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. and discovery needs 9/28/2022 DAC Email communiocation with Chambers re: settlement conference requirements 0.4 0.2 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 130.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 9/29/2022 DAC 154 Reviewed Motion for reconsideration of order denying motion to amend scheduling order 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 455.00 9/30/2022 DAC 155 Reviewed order denying Motion for Reconsideration and setting deadline for filing of proposed scheduling order 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 10/3/2022 DAC 156 Reviewed order setting Telephonic Settlement Conference 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 0.00 Excessive. 10/3/2022 DAC Emailed OC with settlement offer as well as reques to schedule a new 30(b)(6) deposition as well as an expert deposition 1.1 0.6 $ 650.00 $ 797.50 $ 357.50 Excessive; 50% reduction. 10/3/2022 DAC Received and reviewed email from OC with scheduling order 0.5 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 162.50 "Received" takes no time and is ambiguous. 50% reduction to account for review. 10/4/2022 DAC 157 Reviewed proposed scheduling order submitted by CitiMortgage Incorporated 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 325.00 10/4/2022 DAC Reviewed judge Morrissey's requirements for settlement conference memo 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 455.00 10/5/2022 DAC 158 Drafted NOTICE of Deposition of Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. 1 1.0 $ 650.00 $ 725.00 $ 650.00 10/5/2022 DAC Reviewed prior deposition and account notes to create outline for depo 3.1 3.1 $ 650.00 $ 2,247.50 $ 2015.00 10/5/2022 DAC Email communication with OC regarding deposition dates 0.4 0.2 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 130.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 10/6/2022 DAC 159 Reviewed discovery served by CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.5 1.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,087.50 $ 975.00 10/6/2022 DAC Internal email regarding adding Nemer Hadous as co-counsel for trial followed up by call and discussion of his participation at 1.2 1.2 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 780.00 trial stage 10/6/2022 NEMER H Call with DAC to discuss trial and 2nd chair 1.2 1.0 $ 500.00 $ 600.00 $ 500.00 Previous entry included time for emailing; meeting could thus not have been 1.2 hours 10/6/2022 DAC Received email with discovery requests from Citi in Word format 0.4 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. 10/6/2022 DAC Multiple emails with OC regarding Depo of Def. Expert and scheduling issues/conflicts 1 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 725.00 $ 325.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 10/7/2022 DAC 160 Drafted Notice of Appearance of Nemer Hadous, sent to staff for filing 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 10/7/2022 DAC 161 Drafted Notice of Appearance of Michael Yancey, sent to staff for filing 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 10/7/2022 DAC Additional emails with OC regarding Depo of Def. Expert and scheduling conflicts 0.4 0.2 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 130.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 10/7/2022 DAC Multiple emails re: depos of experts. Agreed to take def. expert on 10/31/22 0.5 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 162.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 10/7/2022 DAC Received discovery responses from Citi 1.2 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. 10/7/2022 DAC Internal communications regarding serious deficiencies of Citi's responses 1 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 725.00 $ 325.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 10/7/2022 DAC Reviewed court's standing order on discovery disputes 0.4 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 65.00 Counsel had prior experience with this topic; reduced to nominal time. Page 12 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 32 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 10/10/2022 DAC Email communiocation with OC regarding meet and confer re: deficient discovery responses sent to Plaintiff 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 260.00 10/10/2022 DAC Prepared Plaintiff's portion of joint discovery dispute and sent to OC, requesting meet and confer 1.4 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 1,015.00 $ 455.00 Excessive; 50% reduction. 10/10/2022 DAC Received and reviewed lengthy email from OC regarding discovery dispute. Scheduled call for 10/11/22 - multiple emails 0.8 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 580.00 $ 260.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; 50% reduction to exchanged in a thread account for review. 10/11/2022 DAC 162 Reviewed order setting Rule 16 Case Management Plan and setting jury trial 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 325.00 10/11/2022 DAC Call with OC and narrowed discovery dispute 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 455.00 10/12/2022 DAC 163 Finalized and sent joint statement of discovery dispute 0.8 0.8 $ 650.00 $ 580.00 $ 520.00 10/12/2022 DAC 164 Reviewed Order requiring parites to file copies of requests for production of documents and responses in dispute 0.2 0.2 $ 650.00 $ 145.00 $ 130.00 10/12/2022 DAC 166 Pulled and organized copies of requests for production of documents and responses in dispute, sent to staff for filing 0.6 0.6 $ 650.00 $ 435.00 $ 390.00 10/12/2022 DAC Email and phone communiocation with Plaintiff's expert to discuss upcoming deposition 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 325.00 10/13/2022 DAC 167 Reviewed order narrowing requests to the relevant time frame and requring Citi to respond and/or object accordingly 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 260.00 10/14/2022 DAC 168 Drafted amended discovery requests pursuant to the Court's order and notice of the same 1.2 0.6 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 390.00 Excessive because amended requests simply included limited date range; 50% reduction. 10/18/2022 DAC Drafted Confidential Mediation Memorandum to be submitted to mediator 3.2 3.2 $ 650.00 $ 2,320.00 $ 2080.00 10/18/2022 DAC 169 Drafted First amended notice of deposition of Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. 0.7 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 455.00 10/18/2022 DAC 170 Drafted amended subpoena and notice of the same 0.6 0.2 $ 650.00 $ 435.00 $ 130.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. 10/18/2022 DAC 171 Reviewed notice of deposition of Plaintiff's Expert 0.4 0.2 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 130.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 10/18/2022 DAC Received and reviewed offer to settle from Citi in accordance with Judge Morrissey's requirements 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. 10/20/2022 DAC Sent discovery responses to paralegal to forward to OC. 0.4 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 10/20/2022 DAC Prepared and sent email to OC with Plaintiff's Trial witness disclosure 1.5 1.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,087.50 $ 975.00 10/24/2022 DAC Consulted with rebuttal expert in response to newly disclosed Attorney Expert by Def Citi 1.2 1.2 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 780.00 10/24/2022 DAC Received responses from Citi to Def. Amended Second Set of request for production 1.2 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. 10/25/2022 DAC Conference with client regarding mediation 1.2 1.2 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 780.00 10/25/2022 DAC Consulted with staff about having not received zoom link for settlement conference. Sent an email to Judge Morrissey's 0.5 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 65.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. chambers requesting zoom link 10/25/2022 DAC Prepared with Client and reviewed memo and Attended mediation by Zoom with Judge Morrissey 4.7 4.7 $ 650.00 $ 3,407.50 $ 3055.00 10/25/2022 DAC Received email from OC regarding meet and confer regarding disclosure of rebuttal expert. Held call with OC 0.7 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 227.50 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; reduced by 50% to account for call. 10/26/2022 DAC 172 Reveiwed discovery responses from CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.5 1.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,087.50 $ 975.00 10/27/2022 DAC 173 Reviewed order setting continued settlement conference 0.4 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 0.00 Excessive. 10/29/2022 DAC Prepared for depo of Citi's expert and 30(b)(6) witness following reversal by 9th Cir. 4.7 4.7 $ 650.00 $ 3,407.50 $ 3055.00 10/31/2022 DAC Reviewed Expert rebuttal report, 9th Cir order and conducted the deposition of John Ulzheimer 3.8 3.8 $ 650.00 $ 2,755.00 $ 2470.00 10/31/2022 DAC Meet and confer with opposing counsel re: 30(b)(6) 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 260.00 10/31/2022 DAC Reviewed notes and outline and then conducted the deposition of CitiMortgage Inc.'s 30(b)(6) witness 3.4 3.4 $ 650.00 $ 2,465.00 $ 2210.00 10/31/2022 DAC Received and reviewed email with document disclosure 1.2 0.6 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 390.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; 50% reduction to account for review. 11/1/2022 DAC 174 Reviewed motion to exclude Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert by CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.7 1.7 $ 650.00 $ 1,232.50 $ 1105.00 11/1-8/2022 DAC Emails re: Plaintiff's rebuttal expert and discovery dispute 1.4 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 1,015.00 $ 455.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/8/2022 DAC 175 Drafted and served supplemental Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure 1.2 1.2 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 780.00 11/11/2022 DAC 176 Drafted response in opposition to motion to exclude Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert 4.8 2.4 $ 650.00 $ 3,480.00 $ 1560.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/11/2022 DAC Conducted litigation team strategy meeting regarding trial 1.7 0.9 $ 650.00 $ 1,232.50 $ 552.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/16/2022 DAC prepared for continued meditaion with client - attended by zoom 2.5 1.3 $ 650.00 $ 1,812.50 $ 812.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/16/2022 DAC 177 Reviewed minute entry submitted by Magistrate Judge Michael T Morrissey regarding settlement conference 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 0.00 Excessive. 11/18/2022 DAC 178 Reviewed Reply to Response to Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert filed by CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.6 0.8 $ 650.00 $ 1,160.00 $ 520.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 11/22/2022 DAC 179 Reviewed order granting Motion to Exclude Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 260.00 11/22/2022 DAC 180 Prepared request for transcript of proceedings held on September 20, 2022 0.5 0.3 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 162.50 Excessive; 50% reduction. 11/22/2022 DAC Received court's order excluding Rebuttal expert from trial 0.1 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 0.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time. 11/29/2022 DAC 182 Reviewed official transcript of September 20, 2022 proceedings 0.8 0.8 $ 650.00 $ 580.00 $ 520.00 11/30/2022 DAC Sent email to OC to schedule meet and confer on MILs 0.4 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 65.00 Excessive; reduced to nominal time. Page 13 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 33 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 12/2/2022 DAC 181 Drafted Motion for Reconsideration of Court's order excluding Plaintiff's rebuttal expert 3.7 1.9 $ 650.00 $ 2,682.50 $ 1202.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 12/5/2022 DAC Started reviewing issues with discovery to determine what MILs we'd probably want to file and the basis for such motion - 5.8 2.9 $ 650.00 $ 4,205.00 $ 1885.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. discussed with Nemer and Michael Y 12/5/2022 MY III Discussed MILs with DAC and Nemer 1.4 1.4 $ 275.00 $ 385.00 $ 385.00 12/5/2022 NEMER H. Discussed MILs with DAC and Yancey 1.4 1.4 $ 500.00 $ 700.00 $ 700.00 12/8/2022 DAC Reviewed MILs and met and conferred with opposing counsel (motions in limine) 2 1.0 $ 650.00 $ 1,450.00 $ 650.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 12/8/2022 DAC Prepared pretrial order for review and consideration by OC 2.8 2.8 $ 650.00 $ 2,030.00 $ 1820.00 12/9/2022 DAC Prepared exhibit list for submission 4 4.0 $ 650.00 $ 2,900.00 $ 2600.00 12/9/2022 DAC Prepared jury instructions 4.2 4.2 $ 650.00 $ 3,045.00 $ 2730.00 12/10/2022 DAC Prepared void dire 2.3 1.2 $ 650.00 $ 1,667.50 $ 747.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction. 12/10/2022 DAC Prepared draft verdict form 1.5 0.8 $ 650.00 $ 1,087.50 $ 487.50 Excessive; 50% reduction 12/11/2022 DAC Prepared initial draft of Joint Statement of the case 1.9 1.0 $ 650.00 $ 1,377.50 $ 617.50 Excessive; 50% reduction 12/15/2022 MY III Email to OC regarding pretrial order and exhibit lists 0.1 0.1 $ 275.00 $ 27.50 $ 27.50 12/16/2022 MY III Received and reviewed email from OC regarding pretrial order and exhibit lists, responded to same 0.4 0.2 $ 275.00 $ 110.00 $ 55.00 "Received" is ambiguous and takes no time; 50% reduction to account for review. 12/16/2022 DAC 183 Reviewed Order denying Motion for Reconsideration and ordering further briefing on triable issues 1.2 1.2 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 780.00 12/17/2022 DAC Conducted litigation team strategy meeting regarding trial and pretrial deadlines 3.2 1.6 $ 650.00 $ 2,320.00 $ 1040.00 Excessive; next entry includes preparation time within same allotment of time, meaning this entry is too vague to asses reasonableness; 50% reduction 12/17/2022 MY III Prepared for and attended strategy meeting with managing partner 3.2 1.6 $ 275.00 $ 880.00 $ 440.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/17/2022 MY III Incorporated Defendant's exhibit into Joint Exhibit List, drafted objections to the same 1.2 1.2 $ 275.00 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 12/17/2022 MY III Email to OC re Joint Exhibit List 0.1 0.1 $ 275.00 $ 27.50 $ 27.50 12/17/2022 DAC Prepared initial draft of combined MIL 4 2.0 $ 650.00 $ 2,900.00 $ 1300.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/17/2022 DAC Finalized joint statement of the case 1.4 0.7 $ 650.00 $ 1,015.00 $ 455.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/18/2022 NEMER H. Prepared motion to preclude opinions of Kent Cammack 6.1 6.1 $ 500.00 $ 3,050.00 $ 3050.00 12/18/2022 NEMER H. Prepared Motion to preclude opinions of John Ulzheimer 4.8 4.8 $ 500.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2400.00 12/18/2022 DAC reviewed and edited motion to preclude Kent Cammack 1.5 1.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,087.50 $ 975.00 12/19/2022 DAC reviewed and edited motion to preclude John Ulzheimer 1.4 1.4 $ 650.00 $ 1,015.00 $ 910.00 12/19/2022 MY III 184 Reviewed and Submitted for filing combined Motion in Limine 2.2 2.2 $ 275.00 $ 605.00 $ 605.00 12/19/2022 MY III 185 Reviewed and submitted for filing proposed pretrial order and joint exhibit list 1.2 1.2 $ 275.00 $ 330.00 $ 330.00 12/19/2022 MY III 186 Reviewed and submitted for filing proposed Voir Dire 1 1.0 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 $ 275.00 12/19/2022 MY III 187 Reviewed and submitted for filing proposed verdict form 0.6 0.6 $ 275.00 $ 165.00 $ 165.00 12/19/2022 MY III 188 Reviewed joint statement of the case (to be read to the jury) and sent for filing 0.8 0.4 $ 725.00 $ 580.00 $ 290.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 12/19/2022 DAC 189 Reviewed joint statement of the case (to be included on the juror questionnaire) and sent for filing 0.7 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 507.50 $ 227.50 Excessive; 50% reduction 12/19/2022 DAC 190 Reviewed final version and sent for filing Motion to preclude opinion testimony by Defendant's "expert" Kent E. Cammack 1.2 1.2 $ 650.00 $ 870.00 $ 780.00 12/19/2022 DAC 191 Reviewed Motion in Limine No. 1 by CitiMortgage Incorporated 1.7 0.9 $ 650.00 $ 1,232.50 $ 552.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/19/2022 DAC 192 Reviewed Motion in Limine No. 2 by CitiMortgage Incorporated 2.2 1.1 $ 650.00 $ 1,595.00 $ 715.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/19/2022 DAC 193 Reviewed Motion in Limine No. 3 by CitiMortgage Incorporated 2.2 1.1 $ 650.00 $ 1,595.00 $ 715.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/19/2022 DAC 194 Reviewed and submitted for filing Motion to preclude opinions by Defendant's expert John Ulzheimer 0.8 0.8 $ 650.00 $ 580.00 $ 520.00 12/19/2022 DAC 195 Drafted notice re: pretrial filings and informal request for a one-day extension 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 325.00 12/19/2022 MY III 196 Reviewed and submitted for filing Proposed Verdict Form and Proposed Voir Dire Questions by CitiMortgage Incorporated 0.6 0.6 $ 275.00 $ 165.00 $ 165.00 12/19/2022 MY III Multiple emails with OC regarding pre-trial documents 1.1 0.6 $ 275.00 $ 302.50 $ 151.25 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/20/2022 DAC 197 Reviewed order vacating and resetting pretrial conference 0.1 0.1 $ 650.00 $ 72.50 $ 65.00 12/20/2022 DAC 198 Drafted/reviewed joint deposition designations 2.7 2.7 $ 650.00 $ 1,957.50 $ 1755.00 12/20/2022 DAC 199 Drafted/reviewed joint proposed jury instructions 0.5 0.5 $ 650.00 $ 362.50 $ 325.00 12/20/2022 MY III Multiple emails with OC regarding pre-trial documents 0.9 0.5 $ 275.00 $ 247.50 $ 123.75 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/21/2022 DAC Began working on cross examination questions of Citi. Reviewed depositions and prepared draft outline with citiation to 4 4.0 $ 650.00 $ 2,900.00 $ 2600.00 exhibits 12/21/2022 DAC Started cross-examination outline for John Ulzheimer and Kent Cammak 4.6 2.3 $ 650.00 $ 3,335.00 $ 1495.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/22/2022 DAC Reviewed exhibits and cited appropriate bates lables for cross exam questions for Cammak and Ulzhimer 2.3 2.3 $ 650.00 $ 1,667.50 $ 1495.00 Page 14 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 34 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate 12/23/2022 DAC Began drafting outline of direct exam questions for Plaintiff. Planned office meeting to expand on outline with client 3.8 1.9 $ 650.00 $ 2,755.00 $ 1235.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/23/2022 DAC In-Office Meeting with Client. Reviewed outline and filled in historical gaps in the story 3.6 3.6 $ 650.00 $ 2,610.00 $ 2340.00 12/23/2022 DAC Began working on opening statement 2.2 1.1 $ 650.00 $ 1,595.00 $ 715.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/24/2022 DAC Continued working on opening statement. Put into near final form 5.3 2.7 $ 650.00 $ 3,842.50 $ 1722.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/24/2022 DAC reviewed exhibits including defendant's proposed exhibits to prepare better objections with authority to support the same 4 2.0 $ 650.00 $ 2,900.00 $ 1300.00 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction 12/25/2022 DAC Completed cross exam questions for Defendant's two experts 2.5 2.5 $ 650.00 $ 1,812.50 $ 1625.00 12/26/2022 DAC Reviewed defendant's records and prior testimony to fine tune cross exam and opening statement. Began framework for 5.4 5.4 $ 650.00 $ 3,915.00 $ 3510.00 anticipated closing 12/26/2027 DAC Reviewed 9th Cir opinion and order to determine things to include in the opening 1.9 1.9 $ 650.00 $ 1,377.50 $ 1235.00 12/27/2022 DAC Received/reviewed Offer of Judgment. Conducted legal research into the effect of the OOJ including costs (but not fees) 3.8 1.9 $ 650.00 $ 2,755.00 $ 1235.00 "Received" takes no time; 50% reduction to account for review and research. 12/27/2022 DAC Telephonic and email conversations with Client regarding Offer of Judgment 1 1.0 $ 650.00 $ 725.00 $ 650.00 12/28/2022 DAC Email conversations with OC regarding Offer of Judgment - seeking clarity and providing informal counter-offer/suggestion of 0.4 0.4 $ 650.00 $ 290.00 $ 260.00 amended Offer of Judgment Continued email and telephonic discussions with Client regarding Offer of Judgment - Providing legal advice regarding $ 650.00 $ 650.00 12/29/2022 DAC 1 1.0 $ 725.00 cost/benefit analysis of acceptance versus rejection 12/29/2022 DAC Telephonic conversation with Client wherein Client provided direction to accept Offer of Judgment 1.7 0.0 $ 650.00 $ 1,232.50 $ 0.00 Duplicative with previous entry, or not enough detail to distinguish; awarded lower of the two. 12/29/2022 Researched effect of Offer of Judgment language, drafted notice of acceptance of Offer of Judgment, pulled and organized $ 650.00 $ 877.50 Excessive and vague; 50% reduction DAC 200 2.7 1.4 $ 1,957.50 finalized draft, sent to staff for filing 1/5/2023 DAC 201 Reviewed order entering judgment, vacating pretrial conference, vacating jury trial, and denying all pending motions as moot 0.1 0.1 $ 725.00 $ 72.50 $ 72.50 1/5/2023 DAC 202 Reviewed Clerk's Judgment - email to co-counsel regarding the same; Conducted email and telephonic discussions with co- 0.1 0.1 $ 725.00 $ 72.50 $ 72.50 counsel regarding motion for fees 1/9/2023 DAC Reviewed LRCiv 54.2 in preparation for drafting motion for fees 1 1.0 $ 725.00 $ 725.00 $ 725.00 1/9/2023 DAC Conducted legal research on Johnson/Kerr factors relevant to fee applications in the Ninth Circuit in preparation for drafting 8 4.0 $ 725.00 $ 5,800.00 $ 2900.00 Excessive; 50% reduction motion for fees 1/9/2023 - $ 435.00 DAC Email communication with Ronald Burdge regarding use of U.S. Consumer Law Practice & Attorney Fee Survey in fee petition 0.6 0.6 $ 725.00 $ 435.00 1/10/2023 Review of latest U.S. Consumer Law Practice & Attorney Fee Survey (2017-2018) and research into case law re: accounting for $ 1885.00 1/10/2023 DAC 2.6 2.6 $ 725.00 $ 1,885.00 inflation in a fee award in preparation for drafting motion for fees 1/11/2023 DAC Began drafting motion for fees - Introduction, basic outline, legal citation to Ninth Circuit standards, and setting forth 7.1 3.6 $ 725.00 $ 5,147.50 $ 2573.75 Excessive; 50% reduction Johnson/Kerr factors 1/12/2023 DAC Drafted affidavit in support of hourly rate sought, as required by LRCiv. 54.2(d)(4) 1 1.0 $ 725.00 $ 725.00 $ 725.00 1/12/2023 NEMER H. Drafted affidavit in support of hourly rate sought, as required by LRCiv. 54.2(d)(4) 0.8 0.8 $ 550.00 $ 440.00 $ 440.00 1/12/2023 BETH F. Drafted affidavit in support of hourly rate sought, as required by LRCiv. 54.2(d)(4) 0.5 0.5 $ 575.00 $ 287.50 $ 287.50 1/12/2023 MY III Drafted affidavit in support of hourly rate sought, as required by LRCiv. 54.2(d)(4) 0.4 0.4 $ 275.00 $ 110.00 $ 110.00 1/13/2023 DAC Email communication with Hyung Choi, local Arizona consumer protection litigator, regarding prevailing rates and 0.7 0.7 $ 725.00 $ 507.50 $ 507.50 reasonableness of rates sought 1/13/2023 DAC Email communication with Veronika Fabian, another local Arizona consumer protection litigator, regarding prevailing rates 0.7 0.7 $ 725.00 $ 507.50 $ 507.50 and reasonableness of rates sought Email communication with Ronald Wilcox, national consumer protection litigator based in California, regarding prevailing $ 507.50 1/13/2023 DAC 0.7 0.7 $ 725.00 $ 507.50 rates and reasonableness of rates sought Provided copies of counsel affidavits to Hyung Choi, Veronika Fabian, and Ronald Wilcox for review; requested affidavits $ 652.50 1/16/2023 DAC from each concerning the reasonablness of 0.9 0.9 $ 725.00 $ 652.50 the rates sought 1/16/2023 DAC Continued drafting motion for fees - Application of facts of this case to the twelve applicable Johnson/Kerr factors 4.3 2.2 $ 725.00 $ 3,117.50 $ 1558.75 Excessive; 50% reduction Continued drafting motion for fees - Legal Research into Ninth Circuit case law regarding recoverability of fees incurred in $ 1413.75 Excessive; 50% reduction 1/17/2023 DAC recovering fees under a fee-shifting statute, incorporated same into brief 3.9 2.0 $ 725.00 $ 2,827.50 1/18/2023 DAC Finished drafting motion for fees - Final edits, Shepardize cases, final read through 4 2.0 $ 725.00 $ 2,900.00 $ 1450.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 1/18/2023 DAC Pulled and organized documents for finalized motion for fees, sent to co-counsel for final review 2.8 1.4 $ 725.00 $ 2,030.00 $ 1015.00 Excessive; 50% reduction 1/19/2023 MY III Complete final review of all motion for fees documents, minor edits, sent to staff for filing 0.8 0.8 $ 275.00 $ 220.00 $ 220.00 Page 15 of 16 Case 2:18-cv-02103-ROS Document 210 Filed 08/10/23 Page 35 of 35 Attorney Dkt Rationale (Initials) Time Time Hourly Date Services Rendered Requested Fees Fee Award Listed Awarded Rate TOTAL HOURS REQUESTED 815.5 TOTAL HOURS AWARDED 548.6 LODESTAR $481,807.50 REQUESTED COURT- $ 309,938.75 CALCULATED INITIAL LODESTAR AWARD: $247,951.00 LODESTAR REDUCED by 20% Page 16 of 16