errito rla \ laW Library IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM FILE 2 '1",,,, 1'\1 I 7 P:i 2: I 5 VINCENT T. AKIMOTO, M.D., ) Civil Cas~ No.-CVl 011-b2 3 ) Plaintiff, ) 4 ) 5 ) vs. ) 6 ) ) DECISION AND ORDER 7 ) 8 CARL T.C. GUTIERREZ, in his personal) capacity; THERESE M. HART; and JOHN) 9 DOES A-M, ) ) 10 Defendants. ) 11 ---------------------------------------------------) 12
13 INTRODUCTION
14 This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant Carl T.C. Gutierrez's ("Mr 15 Gutierrez's") request for attorneys' fees. Mr. Gutierrez is represented by the Law Offices 0 16 Cunliffe and Cook ("C & C"), and by co-counsel, the Law Offices of Lujan Aguigui & Pere 17 LLP ("LAP"). The Government of Guam ("Government") is represented by Mariann 18
19 Woloschuk.
20 BACKGROUND 21 Mr. Gutierrez was "exonerated of any wrongdoing" on March 3, 2011, and sough 22 attorneys' fees. The Court ordered Mr. Gutierrez to submit his request of reasonable attorneys' 23 fees and billing records under penalty of perjury. He timely submitted two declarations of fee 24
25 relating to services provided by LAP and C & Co The Government timely submitted it
26 Opposition. 27
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, et at. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page I of 17 This case was originally assigned to the Honorable Steven Unpingco ("Judg
2 Unpingco"). On November 25, 2005, LAP associated with C & C to act as Mr. Gutierrez's co
3 counsel. Upon its appearance, LAP devoted itself to disqualifying Judge Unpingco. 4 December 7, 2005, LAP filed a motion to achieve that result. On December 22,2005, the co 5 dismissed the motion because it was not verified as required by 7 GCA §6107 and did not stat 6 sufficient facts under 7 GCA §6105 to warrant disqualification. On December 29, 2005, LA 7
8 filed an Erratum to correct the submission. On January 12, 2006, the court dismissed th
9 Erratum as untimely and improperly served. 10 On February 1,2006, LAP filed a second motion to disqualify, and on February 15,2006 II the Court denied that motion and filed a Submission of Questions for Certification to th 12
Supreme Court. On May 31, 2006, the Supreme Court issued an Order holding that a judge rna 13
14 strike a statement of objection if it fails to procedurally comply with 7 G.CA. §6107 without th
15 referring the matter to another judge. The Court further held that a judge may strike a statemen 16 of objection that is legally insufficient without referring such matter to a recusal judge. 17 On July 27, 2006, LAP filed its Petition for Writ of Prohibition and, or Writ 0 18
19 Mandamus and Supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Supreme Court. LA
20 sought an order that the Superior Court stop scheduling any proceedings until the recusal judg 21 ruled on the competency of the presiding judge or until the disqualification motion w 22 transferred to another judge. On August 25, 2006, the Supreme Court issued People v. Johnny 23 2006 Guam 10, which reiterated its Order of May 31, 2006. On September 14, 2006, th 24
25 Supreme Court denied a stay of the Superior Court. On September 19, 2006, Judge Unpingc
26 disqualified himself on a ground different than any alleged by LAP. 27
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, et al Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 2 of 17 On April 22, 2009, Mr. Gutierrez filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion t
2 Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute. The court granted the motion on June 22, 2010. On Decembe
3 7,2010, Mr. Gutierrez submitted a proposed Judgment ordering Vincent T. Akimoto, M.D. ("Dr. 4 Akimoto") to pay Mr. Gutierrez's reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 5 G.C.A. §7111. Th 5 Court then ordered Dr. Akimoto and Mr. Gutierrez to file memorandums on the issue b 6 December 20,2010. 7
8 The Court issued an order on January 3, 2011, stating that under 5 G.C.A. §7111, Dr
9 Akimoto was not responsible for Mr. Gutierrez's attorneys' fees and requested that th 10 Government respond to Mr. Gutierrez's request for fees. The Order directed the Government t 11 brief whether Mr. Gutierrez had been "exonerated of any wrongdoing." On February 4, 2011 12
13 the Government filed memorandum on the issue. Mr. Gutierrez filed a reply on February 21
14 2011. The Court then issued its decision on March 3,2011, determining that Mr. Gutierrez w 15 "exonerated of any wrongdoing" when the case was dismissed pursuant to Rule 41 (b). 16 On March 16, 2011, the Court ordered Mr. Gutierrez to submit a declaration unde 17 penalty of perjury asserting his request of reasonable attorneys' fees. On March 18, 2010, Mr. 18
19 Gutierrez submitted invoices generated by C & C for legal services rendered and costs incurre
20 from August 2002 through March 2, 2011. On March 30, 2011, he submitted invoices generate 21 by LAP for legal services and costs incurred from November 25, 2005, through March 3, 2011. 22 The Government filed its Opposition on April 13,2011. 23
25 DISCUSSION
26 Mr. Gutierrez moves this Court for an order awarding reasonable attorneys' fees pursuan 27 to 5 G.c.A. §7111 and seeks to receive reimbursement of attorneys' fees expended in defendin 28
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, et af. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 3 of 17 against a Proper Spending Act lawsuit. Mr. Gutierrez seeks $37,471.03 in attorneys' fees (LAP:
2 $24,061.25; C & C: $11,450.00) and $1,959.78 in costs (LAP: $1,437.30; C & C: $522.48).
3 This jurisdiction follows the American Rule. Fleming v. Quigley, 2003 Guam 4 ~ 7 4 "Under the American Rule parties bear their own litigation expenses, including attorneys' fees.' 5 Id. The American rule has three general exceptions, which allow attorney's fees where they ar 6 "(1) authorized by statute, (2) authorized by contract, or (3) allowed in judicially-establishe 7
8 equitable circumstances." Id. at ~ 7 (citing Young v. Redman, 55 Cal.App.3d 827, 835 (Cal. Ct.
9 App.1976)). Under Rule 1.5(a) of the Guam Rules of Professional Conduct, "[aJ lawyer shal 10 not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount fo II expenses." Guam R. Prof'l Conduct 1.5(a). 12
Mr. Gutierrez cites 5 GCA §7111 as the basis for his request. Section 7111 reads: 13
14 The Attorney General's Office or the legal counsel for the government of Guam entity for whom an individual defendant works may represent individual IS defendants in any action brought under this Chapter. In the event that individual 16 defendants who are officers, agents, contractors, or employees of the government of Guam have private counsel, and are later exonerated of any wrongdoing, then, 17 and in that event, the government of Guam, or the financially autonomous government of Guam entity for which the officer or employee works, shall 18 reimburse the defendants for their legal fees. 19 5 GCA §7111 (2011). The court agrees that he is entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under th 20 foregoing statute, since he prevailed in this case and was "exonerated of any wrongdoing" afte 21
22 the case was dismissed pursuant to Rule 41 (b). Therefore, the remaining issue is whethe
23 $37,471.03 is reasonable. 24 The United States Supreme Court has held that an award of attorneys' fees should includ 25 time "reasonably expended" on the litigation. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). 26 Time is not reasonably expended when cases are "overstaffed. . .. Counsel for the prevail in 27
28 party should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive
Akimoto v. Gutierrez. et al. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 101 J -02 Page 4 of 17 redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, just as a lawyer in private practice ethically is obligated t
2 exclude such hours from his fee submission." ld at 435 (internal citation omitted). Time is als
3 not "reasonably expended" when work is not "useful and of a type ordinarily necessary" t 4 ensure the final result in the litigation. Webb v. Ed of Educ. of Dyer County, 471 U.S. 234, 235 5 (1985). "Accordingly, work on an unsuccessful claim cannot be deemed to have been "expende 6 in pursuit of the ultimate result achieved." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 (citation omitted). Finally 7
8 courts may reduce an award, if the fee applicant has not met their burden. Hensley, 461 U.S. a
9 433. "The party seeking an award of fees should submit adequate explanation supporting th 10 hours worked and rates claimed." ld After thorough review, the Court either disallows 0 11 reduces the following fees. 12
13 A. Disqualification 14
15 The Government objects to the LAP's fee request relating to the Motion to Disqualif
16 Judge Unpingco. A prevailing party "is entitled to compensation for time reasonably expende
17 on the litigation." ld at 435. Time expended on the litigation is considered reasonable if it i 18 "useful and of a type ordinarily necessary" to secure a successful outcome. Webb, 471 U.S. a 19 243. The Government makes several objections to the fees relating to the disqualification. Bu 20
21 essentially the Government argues that these fees should be eliminated altogether. Opposition a
22 4. The Government argues that Mr. Gutierrez sought to obtain exoneration from charges 0 23 violating the Enforcement of Proper Government Spending Act. ld The Government contend 24 that efforts to disqualify Judge Unpingco rested on a personal conflict between the Judge an 25 LAP, which did not deal with the exoneration. ld at 5-8. The Government notes that th 26
27 conflict arose prior to the firm's involvement in the underlying case and was based on LAP'
28 representation of Judge Unpingco's wife. ld at 8. Accordingly, the Government argues that i
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, et af. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 5 of 17 would be unreasonable to expect the client to bear the costs of obtaining the disqualification, as
2 the motion was meant to benefit LAP. Id
3 The Court concludes that for the period from December 5,2005, to September 14,2006 4 LAP included in its applications 100.75 hours, amounting to $15,518.75 in fees spent on the 5 efforts described above to disqualifY the trial judge. The efforts to disqualify the trial judge bore 6
7 no relation to the dismissal of the case against Mr. Gutierrez, was sought three years before the
8 successful motion to dismiss, and was not necessary to secure the final result of the litigation
9 Therefore, the following 100.75 hours and $15,518.75 in fees are disallowed. LAP's attorneys 10 include: Anthony C. Perez (ACP), David J. Lujan (DJL), Delia S. Lujan (DSL), Peter C. Perez II (PCP), and Peter J. Sablan (PJS). C & C's attorneys include: Jeffrey A. Cook (lAC), F. Randall 12
13 Cunliffe (FRC), and Richard Parker Arens (RP A).
14 DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. FEE TASK DISALLOWED DISALLOWED 15 12/0S/0S DJL 27Slhour .7S hour 206.2S Review JAC's letter regarding disqualification of Judge 16 Unpingco; Teleconference with FRC regarding strategy to 17 disqualify; Conference with ACP regarding motion. 18 ACP ISOlhour .SO hour 7S.00 Conference w/DJL regarding motion to file and basis of motion 19 12/06/0S ACP IS0lhour 2.S0 hours 37S.00 Draft and research recusal motion. 20 12/07/0S DJL 27Slhour I hour 27S.00 Conference w/ACP regarding motion to disqualify; Review and 21 revise same. ACP ISOlhour S hours 7S0.00 Draft and finalize motion; 22 Meeting w/DJL. 12/27/0S DJL 27Slhour .SO hour 137.S0 Calls & meetings w/ACP & DSL 23 regarding decision & order dismissing Mr. Gutierrez's 24 motion to disqualify Judge Unpingco. 25 DSL ISO/hour 4 hours 600.00 Review decision & order dismissing Mr. Gutierrez's 26 motion to disqualify Judge Unpingco; Calls & meetings 27 w/ ACP and DJL regarding same; Legal research regarding writs. 28
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, et at. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 6 of 17 12/28/05 ACP 150/hour .50 hour 75.00 Meeting w/DSL. DSL 150/hour I hour 150.00 Legal research regarding verifying objections; Draft 2 erratum and corrected/verified motion; Meeting w/ACP 3 regarding same. 12/29/05 ACP 150/hour .25 hour 37.50 Review and execute documents 4 (motion unverified so corrected mistake). 5 1116/06 ACP 150/hour .75 hour 112.50 Review decision; Meeting wIDSL. 6 DSL 150/hour 5 hours 750.00 Research regarding procedure on 7 petitioning for writ of mandamus and disqualification of Judge. 8 1117/06 ACP 150/hour .50 hour 75.00 Meeting w/FRC, DSL, and PCP . PCP 225/hour .25 hour 56.25 Follow up on writ issue. 9 DSL 150/hour 4 hours 600.00 Research regarding writ and disqualification procedures. 10 1120106 DSL 150/hour 3.50 hours 525.00 Review research regarding writ and disqualification procedure. 11 1/23/06 DSL 150/hour 5 hours 750.00 Draft new motion to disqualify. 1/24/06 DSL 150/hour 4 hours 600.00 Draft new motion to disqualify. 12 1125/06 DSL 150/hour 4 hours 600.00 Draft new motion to disqualify. 1126/06 DSL 150/hour 5 hours 750.00 Draft new motion to disqualify. 13 1127/06 DSL 150/hour 1 hour 150.00 Draft declaration of counsel in support of new motion to 14 disqualify. 1130106 DSL 150/hour 2 hours 300.00 Draft new motion to disquality. IS 1/31/06 DJL 150/hour .50 hour 75.00 Review draft of motion to disqualify Judge Unpingco; 16 Teleconference wldefendant regarding same. 1 17 DSL 150/hour 4 hours 600.00 Draft new motion to disqualify. 2/01106 DJL 275/hour .25 hour 68.75 Teleconference w/defendant 18 regarding motion to disqualify judge. 19 DSL 150/hour 2 hours 300.00 Revise motion to disqualify. 2/20/06 DSL 150/hour 2.50 hours 375.00 Draft writ of mandamus petition. 20 2/22/06 DSL 150/hour .50 hour 75.00 Review Judge Unpingco's 21 decision and order regarding motion to disqualify; Conference 22 w/ACP. 2/28/06 DSL 150/hour 2 hours 300.00 Revise petition writ and memo; 23 Meeting w/ACP. 3/01/06 DSL 150/hour .75 hour 112.50 Revise Petition for Writ of 24 Alternative mandamus and Memorandum of Points and 25 Authorities. 3/06/06 PCP 225/hour .50 hour 112.50 Multiple conferences w/ACP and 26 DSL regarding writ.
1 The Court presumes LAP made a clerical mistake. Attorney DJL is listed as the attorney, but a rate 0[$150 is typically billed by LAP's junior 28 associates.
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, el al. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 7 of 17 DSL 150ihour 5 hours 750.00 Revise Petition for Writ of Mandamus; Review other petitions for writs; 2 Teleconference wIDJL; Teleconference w/FRC; Meeting 3 w/ACP; Meeting w/PCP; Draft certificates required by Supreme 4 Court rules of appellate procedure. 5 6/28/06 DSL 150ihour 1.50 hours 225.00 Draft writ of prohibition. 7/18/06 DSL 150ihour 1.50 hours 225.00 Draft petition for writ of 6 prohibition; Review file. 7/19/06 DSL 150/hour 7.25 hours 1,087.50 Draft petition for writ and/or writ 7 of mandamus; Legal research regarding same; Meetings with 8 ACP regarding same. 9 7/23/06 DSL 150ihour 2.50 hours 375.00 Draft petition for writ of prohibition and/or writ of 10 mandamus; Legal research regarding same. 11 7/24/06 DSL 150ihour 3.75 hours 562.50 Draft petition for writ of prohibition and/or writ of 12 mandamusl 7/25/06 DSL 150ihour 4 hours 600.00 Draft petition for writ of 13 prohibition and/or writ of mandamus. 14 7/26/06 PCP 225ihour .50 hour 112.50 Review and revise writ; Conference w/DSL. 15 DSL 150ihour 3.50 hours 525.00 Draft petition for writ of prohibition and/or writ of 16 mandamus and authorities; Legal research regarding same; 17 Conference wIPCP. 7/27/06 DSL 150ihour 6.50 hours 975.00 Draft petition for writ of 18 prohibition andlor writ of mandamus; Legal research 19 regarding same. 7/28/06 DSL 150ihour .50 hour 75.00 Attend further proceedings 20 hearing; Meeting wlFRC regarding same; Meeting wlDJL 21 regarding same; Follow up on writ petition; Review Supreme 22 Court rules regarding same. 2 PJS 150ihour .25 hour 37.50 Conference wlDSL regarding writ 23 and strategy.
27 2 FRC also billed for attending the further proceeding. The minutes reveal that FRC appeared at the further proceedings, and although this entry is disallowed under the disqualification, the Court disallows the "further proceedings hearing" due to duplication. There is no record that any 28 other attorney was present.
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, et al. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 8 of 17 C & C also expended time on the disqualification of Judge Unpingco. Therefore, the
2 COurt disallows .75 hours and $150 in fees.
3 DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. FEE TASK DISALLOWED DISALLOWED 4 12/0l/05 JAC 200/hour .25 hour 50.00 Letter to Peter Perez re: disqualification of Judge 5 Unpingco. 12/05/05 FRC 200/hour .25 hour 50.00 Review file; Phone conference 6 wIDJL. 12/08105 FRC 200/hour .25 hour 50.00 Review motion to disqualify. 7
8 B. Duplicate/Excessive Billing 9 The Government objects to LAP's billing practice of double-billing or grouping event' 10 together (e.g. court hearings and phone calls). Opposition at 7. In Santos, however, the coun II
12 identified this as block-billing and explained that it occurs when tasks are grouped in a single
13 block. Santos v. Camacho, 04-00006, 04-00038, 04-00049, 2008 WL 8602098, at *39 (D. Ct 14 Guam April 23, 2008). The court noted that "in several of the billing entries there was enough 15 detail provided to indicate that the tasks contained in the block billings of three or more hour~ 16
17 generally are related, such that failure to segregate tasks [was] not fatal." Id
18 The Court has not generated a category for "block-billed" fees, since most of LAP and ( 19 & C's entries are sufficiently detailed for the Court to determine reasonableness. Therefore 20 although this Court does not disallow fees based on block-billing, it will utilize other categorie~ 21 to evaluate the reasonableness of fees. 22
23 1. Duplication: Intra-office Conferences
24 Courts should reduce hours for time not reasonably expended, such as when cases are 25 overstaffed or when hours are duplicated. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. "The general rule is tha 26 two professionals cannot bill for attending the same meeting. Thus when a party's counsel mee 27
with one [an]other, the Court deducts the duplicative time billed." HRPT Properties Trust v. 28
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, et al. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 9 of 17 Lingle, 775 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1241 (D. Hawaii 2011) (internal citations omitted); Robinson v.
2 Plourde 717 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1099 (D. Hawaii 2010); In re Mullins, 84 F.3d 459,467 (D.C. Cir
3 1996) ("[T]o avoid reimbursement for duplication of effort, [courts] will deduct the fees incurred 4 by the two lowest-billing attorneys."). Courts, however, have discretion to allow duplicate 5 billing if such fees are sufficiently supported. See Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 6
7 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2007) (A party's "failure to provide a persuasive justification for the intra
8 office meetings, the district court did not err in finding the intra-office conferences to be
9 unnecessary and duplicative."). 10 The Court concludes that there are entries involving overstaffing and disallows 2.1 hour~ 11 and $341.25 in fees. DJL billed a rate higher than any other LAP attorney, and since he attended 12
13 the following intra-office conferences, the Court disallows all other requests.
14 DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. HRS. FEE TASK CLAIMED DISALLOWED DISALLOWED 15 3/07/06 DSL 150lhour 2 hours 1.50 hours 225.00 Prepare for and attend pretrial conference; 16 Meeting w/DJL; Meeting w/FRC. 3 17 5/31/06 DSL 150lhour .25 hour .25 hour 37.50 Conference w/DJL regarding Supreme 18 Court Opinion regarding 19 Disqualification of Judge Unpingco. 4 20 7/29/09 PCP 225lhour .25 hour .10 hour 22.50 Conference w/DJL; Call to FRC. 5 21 7/30109 ACP 225lhour .50 hour .25 hour 56.25 Telephone call w/DJL and FRC. 6 22
25 J The Court allows .50 hours for attending the pretrial conference, since the record reflects that DSL appeared. However, the Court disallows
DSL's request for meeting with DJL and FRC, since the Court previously allowed DJL time for this meeting. 26 4 DJL billed for this conference at a higher rate. Thus, the Court disallows DSL's request.
5 This entry is vague. It is impossible for the Court to determine whether PCP engaged in intra-office communications with DJL. Thus, since 27 DJL billed for the same conference at a higher rate, the Court reduces PCP's request but allows time for the telephone call with FRC. 6 This entry is also vague. It is impossible for the Court to determine whether ACP engaged in intra-office communications with DJL. Thus, since DJL billed for a previous conference at a higher rate, the Court reduces ACP's request. DJL billed for this conference at a higher rate. 28 Thus, the Court disallows ACP's request.
Akimolo v. Gutierrez, et al. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 10 of 17 C & C also engaged in intra-office conferences. The Court disallows 1 hour and $200 if
2 fees.
3 DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. HRS. FEE TASK CLAIMED DIALLOWED DSALLOWED 4 8/26/02 JAC 200/hour 1.25 hours 1 hour $200 Conference w/FRC; 7 Legal Research. 5
6 2. Duplication: Court Appearances 7 The Government contends that hearings were overstaffed. Opposition at 7. "[T]hl: 8
9 attendance of hearings, conferences, and depositions by multiple attorneys is duplicative witt
10 respect to the attorneys who merely attend, and do not participate. As a result, the Court would 11 deduct the hours billed by attorneys who merely attended the foregoing." HRPT Propertie l 12 Trust v. Lingle, 775 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1241 (D. Hawaii 2011). "When plaintiffs chose to sene 13 two or three lawyers to sit silently in court beside the lead attorney, the defendant should not bl: 14
15 charged for that time. . .. For routine status calls, the Court will permit a claim for only thl:
16 attorney who appeared." McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F.Supp. 437, 450 (D.D.C. 1986). 17 The Government argues that it was unreasonable for each firm to send its own attorney 18 or in some cases attorneys, when Attorney Cunliffe was familiar with the case. Opposition at 7 19 Therefore, the Court agrees and disallows 3 hours and $725 in fees from LAP's application 0 20
21 fees. The Court disallows .50 hours and $100 in fees from C & C's application of fees.
22 DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. HRS. FEE TASK CLAIMED DISALLOWED DISALLOWED 23 12/09/05 DJL 275/hour .50 hour .50 hour 137.50 Attendance at further proceeding w/ACP.8 24 3/07106 DJL 275/hour 1 hour .50 hour 137.50 Attend pretrial conference w/DSL; 25
27 7 FRC billed for conferring with JAC. The Court will reduce JAC's entry by I hour. 8DJL billed for accompanying ACP, but the minutes reflect that it was ACP who appeared on behalf of the Defendant The Court disallow; 28 DJL's request.
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, el al. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page II of 17 Conference w/DSL and FRC 9 6/30/09 ACP 225/hour 1 hour 1 hour 225.00 Review file; Attend 2 court hearing. 10 7116/09 ACP 225/hour 1 hour 1 hour 225.00 Attend Court hearing; 3 Meeting wIFRC; Telephone call 4 w1DJL. 11 5
DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. HRS. FEE TASK 6 CLAIMED DISALLOWED DISALLOWED 12/09/05 FRC 200/hour .50 hour .50 hour 100.00 Court hearing re: 7 pretrial conference. 12 8
9 3. Duplication: Motion to Dismiss 10 Courts may also conclude that hours are redundant when entries reflect double-billing 01 II duplication of effort. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. The court has a responsibility to exclude tasks 12 that are "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary" hours reasonably expended. Hensley, 13
14 461 U.S. at 434. Tasks, in some cases, qualify as duplicative when an attorney bills for merely
15 examining work performed by co-counsel. See Sierra Club v. us. E.P.A., 625 F.Supp.2d 863 16 868 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (holding that work is not duplicative where attorneys collaborate and 17 coordinate efforts and do more than bill for reviewing each other's work.). 18 C & C was responsible for the Motion to Dismiss. The record does not reflect that the 19
20 LAP took an active role in this task. Therefore, the Court disallows 1.1 hour and $203.75 in
21 fees. 22 DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. HRS. FEE TASK 23 CLAIMED DISALLOWED DISALLOWED 6/17/09 DSL 150/hour .50 hour .50 hour 75.00 Review Opposition 24 to Defendant's
25 9 The record reflects that FRC and DSL appeared. The Court disallows DJL's fee request for the pretrial hearing but allows .50 hours for the 26 conference with DSL and FRC. to The record reflects that FRC appeared on behalf of the motion to dismiss. The Court disallows ACP's request for both attending the hearing
27 and reviewing the case file. II FRC billed for attending this hearing re: motion to dismiss. The Court disallows ACP's request for this time and all other activities relating to
the motion to dismiss on this date. FRC was the lead attorney for the motion to dismiss. 28 12 FRC billed for appearing, but the minutes sheet fails to support this entry.
Akimoto v. Gutierrez, et al. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 12 of 17 Motion to Dismiss and Declaration in Support of 2 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss. 3 6/25/09 DSL 150/hour .25 hour .25 hour 37.50 Review response to Plaintiffs 4 Opposition to Defendant's Motion 5 to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute 6 and Declaration of FRC. 7 7/30109 PCP 225/hour .25 hour .10 hour 22.50 Call to FRC regarding dismissal; 8 Conference with ACP regarding 9 same. 13 7/22/10 DJL 275/hour .25 hour .25 hour 68.75 Teleconference 10 wiACP regarding Decision and 11 Order. 14 12
13 C & C also engaged in unnecessary duplication of a different motion to dismiss. The
14 Court disallows 2.2 hours and $440 in fees. 15 DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. HRS. FEE TASK CLAIMED DISALLOWED DISALLOWED 16 8/26/02 RPA 200/hour .50 hour .25 hour 50.00 Phone conference w/Sandra Lynch (2x); 17 15 Discussion w/JAC. 10/30102 RP A 200/hour 3.20 hours 1.95 hours 390.00 Preparation for hearing; 18 Meeting w/JAC; Meeting w/FRC; Review 19 law and pleadings; Court hearing re: motion. 16 20
21 4. Excessive Hours Claimed 22 "Counsel for the prevailing party should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee 23 request hours that are excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary .... " Hensley, 461 U.S. a 24
25 434.
27 13 This day is replete with intra-office conferences regarding the motion to dismiss. and so the Court reduces PCP's time for conferring with ACP, 14 It appears DSL and ACP met to discuss this issue on two previous occasions: 6/22/10 and 7116/10, 15 The Court reduces this instance of double-billing; FRC also billed for a phone conferences with Sandra Lynch, 28 16 The Court reduces this instance of double-billing; lAC and RPA met twice on 10/30102 to discuss the motion to dismiss,
Akimoto v, Gutierrez, et at, Decision & Order Civil Case No, 1011-02 Page 13 of 17 The Government argues that LAP billed .05 hours l7 to undertake review and process
2 of each notice of judicial disqualification and assignment but later billed .25 hours l8 for ot
3 similar tasks. Opposition at 6. The Government contends it is unreasonable that the LAP too 4 five times as long to perform similar tasks. Id The Court agrees with the Government and fi 5 .25 hours excessive and appropriately reduces those hours. There are also additional entries t 6
7 the Court finds excessive; thus, the Court exercises its discretion to reduce those entries. 11119/10 DSL 150lhour .25 hour .15 hour 22.50 Review Notice of Judge Assignment (Bordallo).24 2
4 C. Inadequate Detail 5 Next, courts may reduce hours where the fee applicant has not met their burden 6
7 entitlement. "[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award
8 documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates. The applicant should exerc 9 'billing judgment' with respect to hours worked and should maintain billing time records m 10 manner that will enable a reviewing court to identify distinct claims." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 4 11 Although immense detail is not required, "counsel should identify the general subject matter 12
I3 his time expenditures." Id at 437 n. 12 (citation omitted).
14 The Court has disallowed the following, as it is unable to determine how LAP allocat 15 its time. The Court disallows 2.25 hours and $475.00 in fees. 16 DATE ATTY. RATE HRS. FEE TASK 17 DISALLOWED DISALLOWED 12/22/05 ACP 150lhour .50 hour 75.00 Review documents. 25 18 7/28/06 DJL 275lhour .25 hour 68.75 Conference w/PJS and DSL. III 1106 ACP 150lhour .25 hour 37.50 Meeting w/staff; 19 Teleconference wIDJL. 26 7116/09 DJL 275lhour .25 hour 68.75 Teleconference w/ACP,z' 20 7123/09 ACP 225lhour 1 hour 225.00 Review file of Ann Cabrera Perez; Telephone calls 21 w1DJL. 28
25 24 The Court allows time for this entry but notes that the case was assigned to Judge Bordallo in September 2006. 26 25 This entry is vague, and it is also likely that this conference involved the motion to disqualify. 26 This entry is vague, and it is also likely that this entry deals with the motion to disqualify. 27 27 This entry is vague. The Court is reluctant to allow LAP time for the motion to dismiss and is unable to ascertain whether or not this entry relates to that motion. 211 It is unclear who Ann Cabrera Perez is and what was purpose of the telephone calls. The Court, however, will allow ACP's request of .25 28 hours for a teleconference with DJL.
Akimolo v. Gutierrez, et af. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 15 of 17 D. Overhead 2 Finally, Courts may reduce costs, which qualify as overhead. In Santos v. Camacho, th 3 District Court of Guam also reviewed billing entries by EOL. Santos v. Camacho, (D. Ct. Gu 4
5 April 23, 2008). The court excluded all requests by EOL and determined that "processin
6 various tasks" involved secretarial duties that would ordinarily be absorbed by the firm. Id a 7 40. In the present case, the application for fees contains 23 entries describing the task performe 8 by either employee EOL or EL as "Process" or "Review and Process" of certain documents. 9 Each entry is for either 3 or six minutes totaling 1 hour and 33 minutes. The fee is $50 per hour 10
11 which totals $77.50 for these tasks. LAP does not justify these entries as attorneys' fees or costs.
12 They appear to have been performed by a clerk or messenger, items within the overhead of LAP. 13 Therefore, the Court disallows 1 hour and 33 minutes and $77.50 in fees. 14
16 E. Costs
17 LAP seeks $1,437.30 in costs. C & C seeks $522.48. Courts are inclined to awar 18 photocopying costs as long as these costs are not excessive and reasonably relate to the litigation. 19 Santos, 2008 WL 8602098, at *43 (citing In re Media Vision Tech. Servo Sec. Litig., 913 F.Supp 20 1362, 1368 (N.D. Cal. 1996)). In Santos, the District Court of Guam could not "determin 21
22 whether the photocopying costs were necessary and/or reasonable." Santos 43. The court note
23 that "[c]ounsel provider ed] the court with an over simplified, general summary of expenses an 24 facsimiles (e.g. Jul-01-04 Costs for copies $57.00, facsimiles for April 2006 $4.20)." Id Th 25 Court held, "This kind of supporting documentation is clearly inadequate. There is n 26
description of the documents photocopied or the costs per page charged." Id The same rul 27
28 applies to online research. Id Santos also addressed this issue and denied costs for onlin
AkimolO v. Gutierrez, et al. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 16 of 17 , .
research when attorneys failed to provide a description of the research perfonned or tim
2 allocated. Id.
3 In the present case, costs for photocopying, facsimile, long distance calling, and olliin 4 research lack any detail. This Court also disallows those costs, because LAP and C & C have no 5 provided any justification for why they were necessary. The Court, however, allows costs fo 6 filing fees and detennines that those entries are sufficiently described. C & C's application fo 7
8 gross receipts tax is unopposed and is allowed.
9 The Court disallows LAP $1,367.30 in costs and disallows C & C $18.88 in costs. 10
II CONCLUSION 12
13 For the reasons stated herein, this Court GRANTS Mr. Gutierrez's request for attorneys'
14 fees and costs as follows: LAP is awarded $5,680 in attorneys' fees and $70 in costs; C & C i 15 awarded $10,560 in attorneys' fees and $503.60 in costs. 16
_/~Jn~/!....:.../J.__, 18 SO ORDERED: 19
20 Richard H. Benson 21 Judge Pro Tempore Superior Court of Guam 22
Akimoto v, Gutierrez, et at. Decision & Order Civil Case No. 1011-02 Page 17 of 17