People v. Gutierrez

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

2 ) 3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CV 4Jl66-03 - ) 4 ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND 5 vs. ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ) 6 (Request for Attorney's Fees) ) 7 CARL T.e. GUTIERREZ; DAVINA M , ) ) 8 LUJAN and DOES A-M, ) Defendants. ) 9

Il This Matter came before the Court upon the motions of the Defendants for attorney's

12 fees. Mr. Gutierrez is represented by the Law Offices of Cunliffe and Cook (hereinafter "C & 13 C") and Dr. Lujan is represented by the Law Offices of Lujan Aguigui & Perez LLP (hereinafter 14 "LAP"). The Government of Guam (hereinafter "Government") is represented by Marianne 15 Woloschuck. Defendants move this Court for an order awarding reasonable attorney's fees 16

17 pursuant to 5 G.C.A. §7111 and seeks to receive reimbursement of attorney's fees expended in

18 defending against a Proper Spending Act lawsuit. C&C seeks $36,058.00($200/hr for 154.70 19 hours) in attorney's fees plus costs. LAP seeks $92,127.66 ($150/hr for 542.19 hours) in 20 attorney's fees and costs. 21

22 The Court having considered the record hereby enters its Findings of Fact and

23 Conclusions of Law. To the extent that Findings of Fact, as stated, may be considered 24 Conclusions of Law, they shall be deemed Conclusions of Law. Similarly, to the extent that 25 matters expressed as Conclusions of Law may be considered Findings of Fact, they shall also be 26 deemed Findings of Fact. 27

Page 1 of22 CV00166-03 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

2 Mr. Gutierrez and Ms. Lujan were "exonerated of any wrongdoing" on May 18,2012

3 when The Guam Supreme Court "reverse[d] the trial court's holding that without the filing of a 4 government claim and authority to settle, the expenditures were illegal, contrary to law or 5 without proper authority to allow personal recovery against Lujan and Gutierrez. I" 6 On May 30, 2012, Defendants' moved for attorney's fees. On July 5, 2012, The Court 7

8 ordered Defendants to submit their requests of reasonable attorney's fees and billing records

9 under penalty of perjury. Defendants timely submitted declarations of fees relating to services 10 provided by LAP and by C&C on July 19,2012. 11 The Government sought an extension of time, asserting that they had not been served with 12

the original Order for Defendants to submit their requests of reasonable attorney's fees, which 13

14 was granted. On August 27, 2012, Government timely submitted its Plaintiff's Response to

15 Defendants' Submission in Support of Request for Payment of Attorney's Fees (hereinafter, 16 "Opposition"). 17 II. FINDINGS OF FACT 18

19 The Court hereby makes the following findings of fact:

20 1. All of the Stipulated Facts are hereby incorporated by reference. 21 2. Section 7111 of the Enforcement of Proper Government Spending Act, provides: 22 "The Attorney General's Office or the legal counsel for the government of 23 Guam entity for whom an individual defendant works may represent individual defendants in any action brought under this Chapter. In the event that individual 24 defendants who are officers, agents, contractors, or employees of the government 25 of Guam have private counsel, and are later exonerated of any wrongdoing, then and in that event, the government of Guam, or the financially autonomous 26

28 1 Attorney Genera/v. Gutierrez, 2011 Guam 10.

Page 2 of22 CV00166-03 government of Guam entity for which the officer or employee works, shall reimburse the defendants for their legal fees. 2" 2 3. Reimbursement oflegal fees must be reasonable. 3 3 4 4. An award of attorney's fees should include time "reasonably expended" on the litigation. 4

5 5. Time is not reasonably expended when:

6 a. cases are "overstaffed;5 7 b. "hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary;6" 8 c. "work on unsuccessful claims;,,7 or 9 d. For work not "useful of any type ordinarily necessary" to ensure the final result i 10

11 the litigation. 8

12 6. The burden is on the fee applicant to demonstrate their attorney fees and costs are 13 reasonable by submitting "[an] adequate explanation supporting the hours worked an 14 rates claimed. 9" Ultimately, it is within the Court's discretion to reduce an award, if the 15

16 fee applicants have failed to meet their burden. 10

17 7. Defendants are only entitled to hours "reasonably expended" on litigation. I! 18

20 2 5 G.C.A. § 7111. The Territory of Guam comports to the American Rule,2 which provides "under the America Rule parties bear their own litigation expenses, including attorney's fees." The American Rule has three genera 21 exceptions, which allow the collection of attorney's fees from an opposing party, which occur when: "(1) authorize by statute; (2) authorized by contract; (3) and/or allowed in judicially-established equitable circumstances. Th 22 Territory of Guam has authorized the collection of attorney fees by statute, namely The Enforcement of Prope Spending Act. 5 G.C.A. § 7111. 23 3 Rule 1.5(a) of the Guam Rules of Professional Conduct, provides h[a] lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses." See also 5 G.C.A. § 7112, requiring 24 the court to awarded "reasonable costs and attorney's fees." 4 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). 25 5 ld. at 435 6 1d.

26 7 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 8 Webb v. Bd. Of Educ. of Dyer County, 471 U.S. 234, 235 (1985). 27 9 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 1°1d. 28 II "Santos, 2008 WL 1699448 at *35. (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, and Webb v. Bd. Of Educ. o/Dyer County,

471 U.S. 234, 242,105 S. Ct. 1923,85 L. Ed2d233 (1985»).

Page 3 of22 cvoo \66-03 8. Courts may reduce hours for time not reasonably expended, such as when cases are

2 overstaffed or when hours are duplicated. 12

3 9. It has been consistently found that "two professionals cannot bill for attending the sam 4 meeting ... thus, when a party's counsel meets with [an] other, the Court deducts th 5 duplicative time billed. 13 " However, discretion remains with the court to allow duplicat 6 billing if such fees are sufficiently supported. 14 7

8 10. Courts may reduce hours where the fee applicant has not met their burden t

9 entitlement. 15 10 III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 11

12 The Court hereby makes the following conclusions of law:

13 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case. 14 2. Defendants are entitled to reimbursement of legal fees pursuant to Section 7111 of the 15

16 Enforcement of Proper Government Spending Act 16 since they prevailed in this matter

17 and were "exonerated of any wrongdoing. 17" 18

20 12Hensley, 461 U.S at 434. 13 HRT Properties Trust v. Lingle, 775 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1241 (D. Hawaii 2011 )(internal citations omitted); Robinson 21 Plourde, 717 F.Supp.2d 1092,1099 (D. Hawaii 2010); and In Re Mullins, 84 F.3d 459,467 (D.C. Cir. 1996)("[T]o avoid reimbursement for duplication of effort, [courts] will deduct the fees incurred by the two lowest-billing 22 attorneys"). 14 See Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942,949 (9 th Cir. 2007)(/or A party's "failure to provide a 23 persuasive justification for intra-office meetings. The District Court did not err in finding "intra-office conferences to be unnecessary and duplicative"). 24 15 "[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended. The applicant should exercise 'billing judgment with respect to hours worked and should maintain 25 billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identity distinct claims." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. 26 16 5 G .C.A. § 7111 provides, "The Attorney General's Office or the legal counsel for the government of Guam enti for whom an individual defendant works may represent individual defendants in any action brought under thi 27 Chapter. In the event that individual defendants who are officers, agents, contractors, or employees of th government of Guam have private counsel, and are later exonerated of any wrongdoing, then and in that event, th 28 government of Guam, or the frnancially autonomous government of Guam entity for which the officer or employe works, shall reimburse the defendants for their legal fees.

Page 4 of22 CV00166-03 3. LAP hourly billing rate of $150 and C&C hourly billing rate of $200 are reasonable and

2 in line with the prevailing market rate. 18

3 A .. UNREASONABLE ATTORNEY FEES 4 i. Duplicative Billing: Overstaffing & Double billing 5 4. LAP billed numerous occasions in which one or more of the attorneys consulted an 6 coordinated with one another, often times three attorneys billing different amounts 0 7

8 time for the same conference. While courts have recognized that "the participation 0

9 more than one attorney does not necessarily constitute an unnecessary duplication 0 10 effort," The District Court of Guam has held this type of billing inappropriate. 19 II 5. There are instances where more than two attorneys are billing to review or work on th 12 same document. Courts have found it "unnecessary for more than two attorneys t 13

14 provide the same services ... [and] fees are reduced accordingly.2o"

17 J7 The government concedes that defendants meet the dictates of Section 7111. The issue is the amount offees owed." Opposition p. 3. th 18 18 In Sorenson v. Mink, the Court assessed whether plaintiffs billing rate was reasonable. 239 F. 3d 1140, 1145 (9

Cif. 200 I). The Court held, "the "applicable legal standards" for the state hours are the standards for awards under 19 their state statute. Under that statute, fees are based on the "prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel." Blum, 465 U.S. at 895, 104 S. Ct. 20 1541. The rate is reasonable if, the rates""are in line with those prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation." ld. at 895 n. 11, 104 S. Ct. 1541." Here the 21 court finds that the fees are in line with the community standards. The Court also notes that partnered attorneys from LAP charged the same rate as more junior associates. See also Santos v. Comacho (D. Ct. Guam April 23, 22 2008) at 38 (citing Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir.1986) which provides, "In determining a reasonable hourly rate, the district court should be guided by the rate prevailing in the community for 23 similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation." 796 F.2d at 1405). 19 Santos v.Comacho, (D. Ct. Guam April 23, 2008) at 40. (internal citations omitted)). The Court further stated, 24 "Therefore, when the billing entry indicates a meeting and/or conference among two or more attorneys, the court will only give credit to two of the attorneys, and the other attorney's time is excluded as duplicative." ld. at 40. 25 Footnote 116 provides an example in how the court reduces the fee request: The court notes that in several instances the billing entries are "block billed." In such instances, the court therefore has estimated the reduced time by 26 reviewing all of the billing entries of the attorneys who participated in the conference. For example, if there is an interoffice conference between four attorneys, and only one of the attorneys has listed the meeting as taking 0.5 hou 27 and the others have combined other tasks within their billing entry the court will assume the meeting among all counsel was 0.5 hour." ld. 28 20 1d. at 42.

Page 50f22 CV00166-03 6. LAP overstaffed and double billed on certain tasks, many of which consisted of inter

2 office conferences. 21 The Court disallows the following requests in attorney's fees:

3 LAP 4 Date Atty Rate Hrs. Fee Reduction Reduction Task Requested Requested to Hours of Fee 5 1111/06 ICA $150/ 0.50 $75.00 0.25 $75.00 "Conference with 6 hr Attorney Peter Perez regarding responding to 7 complaint; Telephone conference with 8 Attorney David Lujan regarding same22 9 1111/06 PCP $150/ 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 "Conference with hr Attorney Ignacio 10 Aguigui regarding responding to II Complaint. 23 3/25/06 DSL W $150/ 0.25 $0 0.25 $0 Meeting with Client 12 hr and Attorney David Lujan regarding answer 13 to Attorney General's Complaint and any 14 possible Cross Claims or Third Party 15 Complaints. 24 6112/08 DSL W $150/ 0.25 $37.50 0.15 $22.50 Draft demand for jury 16 hr trial; Meeting with Attorney David Lujan 17 regarding the same 25

19 21 Hensley. 461 U.S at 434; HRT Properties Trust v. Lingle, 775 F.Supp.2d 1225,1241 (D. Hawaii 2011)(internal citations omitted); Robinson Plourde, 717 F.Supp.2d 1092,lO99 (D. Hawaii 2010); and In Re Mullins, 84 F.3d 20 459,467 (D.C. Cir. 1996) See Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2007)(for A party's "failure to provide a persuasive justification for intra-office meetings. The District Court did not err in rmding 21 "intra-office conferences to be unnecessary and duplicative"). 22 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a teleconference with one another. Attorney David Lujan (hereinafter "DJL") 22 already claimed a fee for this conference. It has been consistently held, "two professionals cannot bill for attending the same meeting." HRT Properties Trust v. Lingle, 775 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1241 (D. Hawaii 2011)(internal citations 23 omitted); Robinson Plourde, 717 F.Supp.2d 1092,1099 (D. Hawaii 2010); and In Re Mullins, 84 F.3d 459,467 (D.C. Cir. 1996). The task was overstaffed. Thus, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court disallows a 24 fee to be claimed by Attorney Ignacio Aguigui (hereinafter "ICA"). 23 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a teleconference with one another. Attorney Ignacio Aguigui already claimed a 25 fee for this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court disallows a fee to be claimed by Attorney Peter Perez (hereinafter "PCP". 26 24 The Court notes that LAP did not charge for Attorney Delia SL W (hereinafter "DSL W"). Two attorneys attended this meeting. Attorney David Lujan was present for the meeting and claimed a fee. This is in line with the case law 27 as provided above. 25Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for 28 this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court disallows a fee to be claimed by Attorney DSL W.

Page 6 of22 CV00166-03 10/7108 DSLW $1501 0.75 $112.50 0.30 $45.00 "Conference with hr Attorney David Lujan 26" 2 10/8/08 DSL W $1501 0.10 $15.00 0.10 $15.00 Conference with hr Attorney David Lujan 3 regarding result of Pretrial Conference?? 4 10/24/08 DSL W $1501 1.25 $187.50 0.25 $37.50 "Meeting with Attorney hr David Lujan regarding 5 pretrial and trial dates,,28 6 11129108 DSL W $1501 1.50 $225.00 0.25 $37.50 "Conference with hr Attorney David Lujan 7 and client regarding case preparation?9" 8 12/18/08 DSL W $1501 3.50 $525.00 0.25 $37.50 "Teleconference with hr Attorney David Lujan 9 regarding deposition30" 10 12/23/08 DSL W $1501 0.75 $112.50 0.25 $37.50 "Teleconference with hr Attorney David Lujan 11 regarding same3]" 1128/09 ACP $1501 1.00 $150.00 $150.00 "Calls and emails with 12 hr Attorney Delia Lujan; Review em ails from 13 Ben Abrams regarding 32 proposed changes. " 14 1/28/09 DSL W $1501 1.25 $187.50 0.25 $37.50 "Meeting with Attorney hr Anthony Perez 15 regarding revisions .... 33" 16 1129109 DSLW $1501 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 "Teleconference with hr Attorney Anthony 17 26 Same. 18 27 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is 19 duplicative and unreasonable. The Court disallows a fee to be claimed by Attorney DSL W. 28Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for 20 this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces DSLW's fee request by 0.25 hours, the same length of time 21 Attorney DJL claimed. 29Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for 22 this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces DSL W's fee request by 0.25 hours. Other conferences listed with 23 attorneys have been for .25 hours. The court reduces the request accordingly. 30 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for 24 this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces DSLW's fee request by 0.25 hours. Attorney DJL claimed 0 .25 25 hours for the conference, so the court reduces the request accordingly. 3] Same. 26 32 ACP is not an actor in this case. His most recent appearance was in October 2008. It cannot be said that the tasks as described above are useful in ensuring the final result of litigation. This task was overstaffed and unreasonable. 27 This is also an example of "insufficient detail," as LAP has provided no detail of the subject matter of those emails and phone calls. The Court disallows this fee request, in entirety. 28 33 Two attorneys claimed a fee for this meeting. Thus, this fee request is unreasonable. Other conferences listed with attorneys have been for .25 hours so the court reduces the request accordingly.

Page 70f22 CV00166-03 Perez regarding OSC . 34 h earIng. 2/5/09 LL $150/ 1.10 $165.00 1.10 $165.00 "Review notice of 2 hr deposition; Review 12.18.08 deposition 3 transcript. 35" 2/06/09 LL $150/ 0.10 $15 0.10 $15.00 "Review initial 4 disclosures and hr amended notice of 5 dispositions 36" 2/9/09 DSLW $150/ 0.25 $37.50 0.15 $45.00 "Teleconference with 6 Cunliffe regarding hr deposition date for 7 Hogan, Tydingco and other discovery issues; 8 Conference with Attorney Delia Lujan 9 regarding discovering notices to issue. 37 10 2/9/09 DSLW $150/ 0.25 $37.50 0.15 $22.50 "Conference within hr Attorney David Lujan II regarding discovery notices to issue 38" 12 2/13/09 DSLW $150/ 1.25 $187.50 0.25 $37.50 "Meeting with Attorney hr David Lujan regarding 13 depositions 39" 14 2118/09 DSLW $150/ 3.25 $487.50 2.00 $350.00 "Teleconference with hr Attorney Cunliffe 15 regarding deposition of Governor 16 Gutierrez ... Conference with Attorney David 17 Lujan, Attorney

19 34 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. ACP claimed a fee for this conference. ACP actually attended the OSC hearing. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the 20 fee request is duplicative and unreasonable .. Other conferences listed with attorneys have been for .25 hours The Court disallows DSL W' s fee request, in its entirety. 21 35 Two attorneys claimed a fee for the same tasks. Attorney DSL W already claimed a fee for reviewing the notice of deposition on 02/05/09. And DSLW reviewed the 12.18.08 deposition transcript on 1130/09. For the same 22 rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court eliminates LL's fee request in the entirety. 23 36 This is an example of overstaffing and insufficient detail. For the tasks as described, DSL W already claimed a fee for doing them on 2/05/09. Therefore, This fee is duplicative and unreasonable. 24 37 Two attorneys claimed a fee for conferencing with one another. Attorney DSL W claimed a fee for the conference. However, it is commonly held that two attorneys cannot both claim a fee for attending the same meeting. For the 25 same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court denies DJL's fee in the entirety. 26 38 This is an example of duplicative billing. Not only was it unnecessary for the conference to occur between DSL W and DJL, Attorney DSL W already claimed a fee for the tasks of reviewing the notice of depositions on 2/5/09. 27 39 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is 28 duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces DSLW's fee request by 0.25 hours, the same length of time Attorney DJL claimed.

Page 8 of22 CV00166-03 Cunliffe and Carl 40 Gutierrez " 2/19109 DSLW $150/ 1.00 $150.00 0.25 $37.50 "Teleconference with 2 hr Attorney David Lujan regarding GMH's 3 objection to subpoena duces tectum 41 4 2/20109 DSL W $150/ 2.50 $375.00 0.50 $75.00 "Meeting with Attorney hr David Lujan and client 5 regarding deposition of Phillip J. Tydingc0 42 " 6 2/24/09 LL $150/ 0.20 $30.00 0.20 $30.00 "Review Plaintiff's hr responses to 7 interrogatories43 " 3/2109 ACP $150/ 0.75 $112.50 0.75 $112.50 "Meeting with Attorney 8 hr Delia Lujan; Attend deposition- deposition 9 44 cancelled " 10 3/2109 DSLW $150/ 0.10 $10.00 0.05 $7.50 "Conference with hr Attorney Anthony 11 Perez45 " 3/9109 DSLW $150/ 2.00 $300.00 0.30 $45.00 "Teleconference with 12 hr Attorney David Lujan regarding questions for 13 John Pangelinan and Therese Hart. 46" 14 311 0109 DSL W $150/ 5.00 $750.00 0.50 $75.00 "Teleconference with hr Attorney David 47 15 Lujan "

16 40 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another and Attorney Cunliffe. Attorney David Lujan 17 already claimed a fee for this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. She not only asserted this one, but twice in the same 18 block description. The Court reduces DSL W' s fee request by 2 hours. 41 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for 19 this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. 20 42 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is 21 duplicative and unreasonable. 43 LL is not an actor in this case. This is an example of overstaffing and unnecessary tasks as it cannot be said to 22 ensure the final result of litigation. The Court therefore disallows this fee request, in its entirety. 44 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney Delia Lujan already claimed a fee for 23 this conference. Furthermore, court has the discretion to disallow fee requests when two attorneys attend the same meeting. Also, this is an example of tasks that do not further the case since Attorney ACP attended a deposition and 24 it was cancelled. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court disallows a fee to be claimed by Attorney ACP in its entirety. 25 45 This meeting was in regards to the cancelled deposition and cannot be said that it was a necessary tasks, ensuring the finality of litigation. Therefore, this task was overstaffed, duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces 26 Attorney's DSLW's fee by 0.05. 46 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney David Lujan already claimed a fee for 27 this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces DSLW's fee request by 0.30 hours, the same length of time 28 Attorney DJL claimed. 47 Same. The Court reduces DSL W' s fee by 0.50 hours.

Page 9 of22 CVOO I 66-03 3/13/09 DSLW $150/ 2.25 $337.50 0.25 $37.50 "Conference with hr Attorney David Lujan regarding status of 2 motion to continue trial 48 3 3116/09 DSL W $150/ 5.50 $825.00 0.25 $37.50 "Teleconference with hr Attorney David Lujan 4 regarding same ... 49 3117/09 DJL $150/ 0.50 $75.00 0.50 $37.50 "Conference with 5 hr Attorney Peter Perez regarding trial and 6 strategy; Conference with Attorney Delia 7 Lujan regarding motion strategy and case 8 history. 50" 3117/09 DSLW $150/ 1.25 $187.50 0.50 $37.50 "Conference with 9 Attorney David hr Lujan;51" 10 3/18/09 DJL $150/ 0.80 $120.00 0.50 $75.00 "Conference with hr Attorney Delia Lujan 11 and Attorney Peter Perez regarding 12 handling trial. 52" 3119/09 DJL $150/ 0.50 $75 0.25 $37.50 "Conference with 13 hr Attorney Delia Lujan Regarding motions 14 status53 " 15 3/19109 DSLW $150/ 7.00 $1,050.00 0.25 $37.50 "Conference with 16 hr Attorney Peter Perez regarding status on 17 motions; Conference with Attorney David 18 Lujan regarding opposition to brief 4" 19 4111/09 DSL W $150/ 1.00 $150 1.00 $150.00 "Conference with hr Attorney David Lujan 20 regarding hearing memo regarding GMH 21 v. Batoyan and

22 48 Same. The Court reduces DSL W' s fee by 0.25 hours. 49 Same. 23 50 Three attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney Peter Perez claimed a fee for this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative 24 and unreasonable. The Court reduces DJL' s fee request by 0.50 hours, the same length of time Attorney PCP claimed. 25 51 Same. The court reduces DSLW's fee request by 0.50, the same length of time as Attorney PCP claimed. 52 Attorney DJL had a personal conflict and requested to be excused from the matter. Since the conflict was self- 26 inflicted, the People should not have to bear the cost of this accommodation. 53 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney Delia Lujan already claimed a fee for 27 this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces DJL's fee by 0.25, the same fee requested by Attorney PCP, the 28 first chair from LAP. 54 Same.

Page 10 of22 CY00166-03 attachments and strategize regarding use at trial. 55" 2 4/21109 ACP $150/ 0.50 $75.00 0.50 $75.00 "Meeting with Attorney hr Peter Perez; Review 3 file. 56" 5/8/09 DSLW $150/ 1.25 $187.50 0.50 $37.50 "Review email from 4 hr Atty. Ben Abrams regarding responding to 5 OSC; Prepare for and attend OSC hearing. 57" 6 6/04/09 ACP $150/ 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 "Meeting with Attorney hr Peter Perez and 7 Attorney Delia Lujan regarding Findings of 8 Fact and Conclusions of 58 Law " 9 6/04/09 PCP $150/ 1.00 $150.00 1.00 $150.00 "Review Decision and hr Order; Conference with 10 Attorney David Lujan; 11 Meeting with Attorney Anthony Perez and 12 Attorney Delia Lujan regarding Findings of 13 Fact and Conclusions of Law. 59" 14 6/18/09 DSLW $150/ 0.50 $75.00 0.50 $75.00 "Meetings with hr Attornev Peter Pereio" 15 6/23/09 DJL $150/ 0.50 $75.00 0.50 $75.00 "Conference with hr Attorney Peter Perei\" 16 6/25/09 DSL W $150/ 0.10 $15.00 0.10 $15.00 Review email form hr Attorney Peter Perez 17 regarding law clerk's possible reemployment 18

20 55 Same. The Court eliminates DSL W' s fee request in its entirety. 56 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney PCP claimed a fee for this conference. 21 For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court eliminates ACP's fee request in its entirety. 22 57Two attorneys claimed a fee for this OSC hearing. Attorney PCP claimed a fee for appearing at the OSC. DSL W merely attended the hearing. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee 23 request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court eliminates DSL W' s fee request in its entirety. 58 Three attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney DSL W claimed a fee for this 24 conference and drafted the final email to the client explain the Court's ruling. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court eliminates ACP's fee 25 request in its entirety. 59 Same. 26 60 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney PCP claimed a fee for this conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and 27 unreasonable. The Court eliminates DSLW's fee request in its entirety. 61 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney PCP claimed a fee for this conference. 28 For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court eliminates DJL's fee request in its entirety.

Page 11 of22 CV00166-03 with Attorney General's Office62 7/13/09 DSLW $150/ 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 "Conference with 2 hr Attorney Peter Perez regarding Stay of 3 Judgment " 63

8/03/09 DSL W $1501 0.25 $37.50 0.15 $22.50 "Review Notice of 4 hr Hearing regarding Costs and Notice of 5 Motion and Motion for Reconsideration or in 6 the Alternative for a New Trial. 64" 7 8/7/09 PCP $1501 1 $150.00 0.25 $37.50 "Conference with hr Attorney Peter Perei5" 8 8/7/09 DSLW $1501 4.00 $525.00 0.50 $75.00 " ... Meeting with hr Attorney Peter Perez 9 regarding same. 66" 10 10106/09 DJL $1501 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 "Conference with 67 hr Attorney Cun1iffe. " 11 10113/09 DJL $1501 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 Teleconference with 68 hr Attorney Peter Perez 12

13 ii. Excessive Hours 14 7. . The prevailing party still "should make a good faith effort to exclude from a fee reques 15 . re dun dant or oth hours that are exceSSIve, ' unnecessary. 69·,. efWlse 16 8. LAP spent an excessive amount of time on certain tasks that are commonly known to be 17

18 simplistic in nature. 70

20 62 This is an example of overstaffing. Attorney PCP e-mai1ed Attorney DSL Wand charged for it. Attorney DSL W charged for reading the same e-mail on a subject matter not necessary in ensuring the final result of litigation. Thus, 21 the Court eliminates this fee request in its entirety. 63 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney PCP claimed a fee for this conference. 22 For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court eliminates DSLW's fee request in its entirety. 23 64 Delia already reviewed the Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative for new Trial on 7/30109 The task was double-billed. Therefore this request is unreasonable and disallowed in its entirety. 24 65 Three attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney DJL claimed a fee for this conference. DJL had a conference with PCP and then PCP had a conference with DSL W about the same issues. For the same 25 rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces PCP's request by 0.25 hours, the amount of time claimed by DJL. 26 66 Same.

67 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney PCP claimed a fee for this conference. 27 For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court eliminates DJL's fee request in its entirety. 28 68 Same.

69 Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434.

Page 12 of22 cvoo I66-03 9. The Court disallows the following requests for in attorney's fees as they are excessive:

2 LAP 3 Date Atty Rate Hrs. Fee Reduction Reduction Task 4 Requested Requested to Hours of Fee 10/9/08 DJL $150/ 4.50 $675.00 2.50 $412.50 Prepare letter to Attorney 5 hr General; Prepare 3 notices to depose, Tydingco, John 6 A B Pangelinan and D. Alicto; Prepare new 7 scheduling order; Conference with client; 8 Prepare Witness Lise! 3/5/09 DSLW $150/ 3.00 $450.00 1.00 $150.00 "Draft email to Attorney 9 Abrams regarding hr scheduling client's 10 deposition; Review email from Attorney Abrams 11 regarding his response to request for production of 12 documents; Draft reply regarding same; Review 13 reply email from Attorney Abrams regarding same; 14 Review Attorney General's response to 15 request for production of documents and attached 16 documents.72 17

18 iii. Inadequate Detail 19 10. The applicant should exercise 'billing judgment with respect to hours worked and should 20 maintain billing time records in a manner that will enable a reviewing court to identif) 21 distinct claims. 73 " While it is not necessary to provide extensive detail, "counsel shoulc 22

23 identify the general subject matter of his time expenditures. 74"

24 11. Certain fee requests lack adequate detail to render the request reasonable. Therefore, Th(; 25 Court disallows the following requests for attorney's fees, as follows: 26 70 I d. providing Discretion rests with the Court to detennine reasonableness. 27 71 This request is excessive based on the nature of the work as described. 72 Same 28 73 I d.

741d. at 437 n. 12.

Page 13 of22 CV00166-03 C&C

2 Date Atty Rate Hrs. Fee Reduction Reduction Task Requested Requested to Hours to Fee 3 6/5/09 FRC $200/ 0.50 $150.00 0.20 $40.00 "Conference with Joshua hr Tenori0 75 " 4 1011109 FRC $200/ 0.25 $50.00 0.25 $50.00 "Phone Conference with hr Peter Perez 76" 5 lOI12/09 FRC $200/ 0.25 $50.00 0.25 $50.00 "Phone Conference with hr Peter Perez77" 6

7 LAP 8 Date Atty Rate Hrs. Fee Reduction Reduction Task Requested Requested to Hours to Fee 9 1/28/09 ACP $150 1.00 $150.00 1.00 $150.00 "Calls and emails with 10 /hr Attorney Delia Lujan; Review emails from Ben II Abrams regarding proposed changes. 78" 12 1/30/09 DJL $150 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 "2.13.09 /Y " Ihr \3 1/30/09 ACP $150 0.75 $112.50 0.75 $112.50 "Review scheduling order; /hr Email Attorney Delia 14 Lujan; Meeting with Attorney David Lujan 80" 15

16 iv. Unnecessary Tasks & Tasks that do not Advance the Case 17

18 12. "Work on an unsuccessful claim cannot be deemed to have been 'expended in pursuit 0

19 the ultimate result achieved. sl " Tasks that do not advance the case are also unreasonable 20

23 75 Joshua Tenorio is not an attorney in this matter and was not a proposed witness. There is insufficient detail to make this fee request reasonable and the Court disallows this fee request accordingly. 24 76 C&C fails to provide details pertaining to the substance of the call or how this conference is in the furtherance of the finality of litigation. 25 77 Same. 78 This description lacks sufficient detail. The request is therefore unreasonable. The last time Atty ACP worked on 26 the matter was on 10/6/08. He is an actor in ensuring the final result of litigation. 79 This description lacks sufficient detail. The request is therefore unreasonable. LAP only provides a date to 27 describe the work completed. 80 This description lacks sufficient detail. The request is therefore unreasonable. Prior to this week, Atty ACP's lack 28 work on he matter was on 10/6/08 and was not an actor in ensuring the final result of litigation. 8l Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 (internal citations omitted).

Page 140f22 CV00166-03 as they are not useful and of the type ordinarily necessary" to ensure the final result 01

2 litigation. 82

3 l3. The Government correctly states, that "clerical tasks are simple tasks that do not require 4 professional evaluation." 5 14. The Court disallows the following fee requests, as they are fee requests for time spent on 6 unnecessary tasks: 7

8 C&C Date Atty. Rate Hrs. Fee Reduction Reduction Task 9 Requested Requested to Hours to Fee 2/20109 FRC $2001 0.30 $60.00 0.30 $60.00 "Deposition of Phil 10 hr Tydingco- cancelled83 " 4/09/09 JAC $2001 1.00 $200.00 1.00 $200.00 "Legal Research re: 11 hr privilege to slander in court pleading84 12

13 LAP 14 Date Atty Rate Hrs. Fee Reduction Reduction Task Requested Requested to Hours to Fee 15 7/09/04 ICA $150 0.10 $15.00 0.10 $15.00 "Telephone message Ihr from Client to Return 16 ca1l 8s" 8116/04 JB $150 1.00 $150.00 1.00 $150.00 "Review of Attorney 17 Ihr General's memorandum Conceding Partial 18 Summary Judgment; teleconference with 19 Attorney Ignacio Aguigui and Attorney 20 David Lujan regarding the same. 86" 21 4/3/06 JSB $150 1.00 $150.00 1.00 $150.00 "Conference with Ihr Attorney Peter Perez 22 regarding presentence investigation report; 23

24 82 Webb v. Ed OfEduc. Of Dyer County; see also Santos (citing See Jordan v. Multnomah County, 815 F.2d 1258, 1263 n. 8 (9th Cir.1987) (noting that a fee claimant must show that counsel made a good faith effort to exclude 25 hours that are excessive, redundant or unnecessary). 83 A cancelled deposition does not advance the case. The Court disallows this fee as an unreasonable request. 26 84 Inquiry into an ancillary legal issue to spring new litigation does not advance the current case. The Court disallows this fee as an unreasonable request. 27 85 This task is clerical in nature, as it does not require an attorney to complete the task. See Santos v. Camacho, the District Court of Guam determined that "processing various tasks" involved secretarial duties that would ordinarily 28 be absorbed by the firm. (D. Ct. Guam April 23, 2008) at 20. 86 Attorney JB/JSB is an attorney not admitted in the Territory of Guam.

Page 150[22 cvoo I66-03 Legal research into guidelines question posed by Attorney Peter 2 Perez; Memo to Attorney Peter Perez 3 regarding possible mitigating role issue; 4 analyze impacts on Civil S7 Case. " 5 9/3/08 DSLW $150 0.10 $15.00 0.10 $15.00 "Check deposition time Ihr for client requested by 6 Attorney General 88" 9/30/08 DSLW $150 1.00 $150.00 0.20 $30.00 " ... Draft emails to 7 Carlyn Torres regarding Ihr need to draft stipulation 8 and order to continue pretrial and trial dates 9 and reasons for continuance. 89" 10 "Conference with 10/6/08 RPST $150 1.00 $150.00 1.00 $150.00 Ihr Attorney Anthony Perez 11 regarding case and continuance status; 12 Attendance at pretrial conference; make notes 13 to file. 90" 1130109 DSLW $150 1.00 $150.00 1.00 $150.00 "Review client's 14 Ihr 12/18/08 deposition transcript. 91" 15

16 B. UNREASONABLE COSTS 17

18 i. Overhead 15. Courts may reduce costs, which qualify as overhead. In Santos v. Camacho, the District 19 Court of Guam determined that "processing various tasks" involved secretarial duties tha1 20

21 would ordinarily be absorbed by the firm.92

22 16. Counsel for Defendant Gutierrez rescheduled a hearing for personal reasons. C&C filed 23 a" Stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Motion to Consolidate," a cost 0 24

25 87 Same. 26 88 This task is clerical in nature, as it does not require an attorney to complete the task. 89 This task is clerical in nature, as it does not require an attorney to complete the task. 27 90 Atty RPST plays no role in the furtherance of litigation in this case. It is not reasonably expended, and not useful

to ensure the final result of litigation. 28 91 This was not in the furtherance of litigation. 92 (D. Ct. Guam April 23, 2008) at 20.

Page 16 of22 CV00166-03 $10.00. This is an unreasonable cost request that should be absorbed by the firrn.9

2 Passing this fee to the client is not proper. It does not advance the case.

3 17. Counsel for Defendant Lujan cancelled a court reporter. The cost request states "Mar-31 4 09, Cecille Flores Inv. CAF045-09-Cancellation Fee, $125." This, too, is an unreasonable 5 cost request that should be absorbed by the firrn. 94 It is not a reasonable cost in the 6

7 furtherance of litigation and Defendant Lujan was the cause of the fee.

8 18. C&C and LAP's "mileage" requests are in actually costs to serve subpoenas. These are 9 not overhead. These reasonable fee requests are allowed as described below: 10 C&C \l Date Description Fee Requested 12 4/21109 Robert Kono-witness fee and mileage re: $35.00 13 subpoena for trial

15 LAP

16 Date Description Fee Requested

17 3117/2009 Inv .#2009-01-1346- Subpoena- Therese Hart $45.00 3/17/2009 Inv.#2009-01-1346- Subpoena-John AB $45.00 18 Pangelinan 3117/2009 Inv.#2009-01-1346-Subpoena- GMHA $45.00 19 Administrator 4/27/09 Inv.#2009-01-1394 CV 05068-09-Subpoena- Rey $45.00 20 Vega 21

22 19. C&C's request for gross receipts tax is "overhead not chargeable to client." These 23 overhead costs, totaling $1,335.40, are disallowed. C&C did not meet their burden tc 24 justify an award. 25

26 93 C&C is requesting $10 in costs, entitled "Superior Court of Guam- filling fee of stipulation and Order to Continue Hearing on Motion to Consolidate on January 18, 2005." Declaration of the Defendant Carl T.C. Gutierrez in 27 Support of Request for Payment of Attorney's Fees, Interim Bill, p. 10. The Government argues that this costs should be disallowed because it was "counsel ['s] family emergency." Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's 28 Submissions in Support of Request for Payment of Attorney's Fees, Ex. 4. 94 LAP is requesting $125.95 for the cancellation fee of the court reporter.

Page 17 of22 CV00166-03 ii. Photocopying and Facsimiles

2 20. Courts are inclined to award photocopying costs as long as these costs are not excessive

3 and are reasonably relate to the litigation. 95 4 21. However, Courts have also found "there is no way for this court to determine whether the 5 photocopying costs were necessary and/or reasonable" when counsel provides "an oveI 6

7 simplified, general summary of expenses .... monthly sums for photocopying and

8 facsimiles .... no description of the documents photocopied or the costs per page 9 charged. 96" 10 22. In Santos, the District Court of Guam could not "determine whether the photocopying II costs were necessary and/or reasonable. 97 " The Court noted, "[c]ounsel provid[ed] the 12

13 court with an oversimplified, general summary of expenses and facsimiles." Id. The

14 Court held "this kind of supporting documentation is clearly inadequate. 15 23. There is no description of the documents photocopied or the costs per page charged. In 16 this case, the Government argues that that LAP has not provided adequate detail aside 17 from listing monthly sums. 18

19 24. This is insufficient, making this cost request unreasonable. The court disallows al

20 photocopying requests by LAP as follows: 21 LAP 22 Date Description Fee Requested

12/31/08 Facsimiles for December 2008 $1.25 23 2/27109 Facsimiles for February 2009 $3.00 24 4/30/06 Photocopies for April 2006 $226.20 25 4/30/06 Facsimiles for April 2006 $12.80 26

27 95 Santos, 2008 WL 8602098, at *43 (citing In re Media Vision Tech. Servo Sec. Litig., 913 F. Supp. 1362, 1368 (N.D. Cal 1996)). 28 96 I d. 97 Santos, at 43.

Page 18 of22 CV00166-03 5/31106 Photocopies for May 2006 $1.00

10/31106 Photocopies for October 2006 $13.40 2 11130/06 Facsimiles for November 2006 $1.20 3 11130106 Photocopies for November 2006 $27.20 4 12/3l/06 Photocopies for December 2006 $27.20

5 1I31/07 Photocopies for October 2007 $0.25

4/30/08 Photocopies for April 2008 $0.50 6 6/30/08 Photocopies for June 2008 $0.50 7 08/31/08 Facsimiles for Oct. 2008 $1.00 8 I 1I30/08 Facsimiles for Nov. 2008 $2.00 9 3/31109 Facsimiles for March 2009 $1.00

10 4/30/09 Facsimiles for April 2009 $5.00

II 5/31109 Facsimiles for May 2009 $0.50

6/30/09 Facsimiles for June 2009 $1.50 12 8/31109 Photocopies for Aug. 2009 $0.50 13 10/31109 Photocopies for October 2009 $218.75 14 11130/09 Photocopies for November 2009 $1.75 15 12/31109 Photocopies for Dec. 2009 $2.75

17 25. The Court allows all of C&C's fee requests for photocopying as they are sufficiently 18 described. 98 19 26. The Court allows costs for all other filing fees. 20

21 C. APPELLATE ATTORNEY FEES & COSTS

22 27. Pursuant to Rule 13 of the Guam Rules of Appellate Procedure: 23 "[a]ny party in a civil case who intends to seek attorney fees for 24 the appeal must include a short statement to that effect and must identify the authority under which the attorney's fees will be 25 sought. Failure to comply with this provision may constitute a 26 waiver of such fees. 99 "

28 98 It should also be noted that The Government did not object to the descriptions of C&C costs for photocopying. 99 Guam R. App. P 13(k)

Page 19 of22 CVOO166-03 28. The Notice of Appeal was filed on October 14,2009. All tasks completed by attorneys

2 after that date were in preparation for appeal.

3 29. Since the parties failed to comply with Rule 13, the Court disallows the follow fee & 4 Costs requests: 5 C&C AQQellate Attorney's Fees Reguests 6 Date Atty. Rate Hrs. Fee Reduction to Reduction Task 7 Requested Requested Hours to Fee 8 10115/09 JAM $2001 1.00 $200.00 1.00 I $200.00 Review file re: motion hr to tax costs hearing 10/16/09 JAM $2001 0.50 $100.00 0.50 $100.00 Court Hearing re: 9 hr motion on bill of cost 12114/09 FRC $2001 0.30 $80.00 0.30 I $60.00 Court hearing re: 10 hr motion II 5/25110 FRC $2001 0040 $80.00 0040 $80.00 Preparation of motion hr for extension; Phone 12 conference with Peter Perez 13 7/30/1 0 FRC $2001 0040 $80.00 0040 $80.00 Review decision re hr costs; Review 14 declaration of service 6/27/11 FRC $2001 1.25 $250.00 1.25 $250.00 Review Order 15 hr 6/28111 FRC $2001 0.75 $150.00 0.75 $150.00 Review Court 16 hr decision; Phone

18 LAP AQQellate Attorney's Fees Reguests

19 Date Atty. Rate Hrs. Fee Reduction to Reduction Task Requested Requested Hours to Fee 20 10/16/09 PCP $150/ 0.25 $37.50 0.15 $22.50 " ... Review Notice hr filed 10/14/09 21 enclosing docket sheet. .. 100" 22 10/23/09 DSLW $1501 0.75 $112.50 0.25 $37.50 "Meeting with hr Attorney Peter 23 Perez regarding filing requests for 24 transcripts for hearing ... 101" 25

26 100 Two attorneys reviewed the same document and conferenced about it. This is an example of overstaffing when Attorney DSL W was appointed to attend the hearing on Bill of Costs. This fee request is duplicative and 27 unreasonable. And the Court reduces PCP's fee request by 0.15 hours. 101 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney PCP claimed a fee for this conference. 28 For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces DSLW's fee request by 0.25 hours.

Page 20 of22 CVOO I 66-03 12m09 PCP $1501 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 "Meeting with hr Attorney Delia Lujan regarding lO2 2 Joint Response " 1/27109 LL $1501 1.50 $225.00 1.50 $225.00 "Review deposition 3 hr transcript 103" 7/29/10 DJL $1501 0.25 $37.50 0.25 $37.50 "Teleconference 4 hr with Attorney Delia Lujan regarding 5 Declaration of Service ... teleconfer 6 ence with Attorney David Lujan 7 regarding same. 104"

9 Appellate Cost Requests 10 30. C&C's request for the costs of transcripts, totaling $3,597.00 with half 11 going to LAP. These fee requests are unreasonable as it was in preparation 12 of the appeal and conducted on the same day that LAP filed their notice to 13

14 appeal.

15 31. LAP's request for the cost of the Deposition of John Pangelinan, totaling 16 $1,084.39 is also an unreasonable request as this deposition was taken in 17 preparation of the appeal. 105 18 32. LAP's various requests for "depo resources" are unreasonable as LAP has 19

20 failed to meet its burden in providing supporting documentation and

21 adequate detail as to what these costs included. The follow requests are 22 disallowed by the Court: 23

24 102 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney DSL W claimed a fee for this 25 conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces PCP's fee request by 0.25 hours. 26 103 Attorney DJL already claimed a fee for this task on 1130109. The Court disallows this fee request, in its entirety. 104 Two attorneys claimed a fee for a conference with one another. Attorney DSL W claimed a fee for this 27 conference. For the same rationale as stated above, the task was overstaffed. Therefore, the fee request is duplicative and unreasonable. The Court reduces DJL's fee request in its entirety. 28 105 Declaration of Defendant Davina M. Lujan in Support of Request for Payment of Attorney's Fees, Billing for

Costs pg. 2.

Page 21 of22 CV00166·03 LAP Date Description Fee Requested 2 7/08/09 Depo Resources Iny. $117.10

3 7/08/09 Depo Resources Iny. $142.40

4 7/08/09 Depo Resources Iny. $142.60 7/08/09 Depo Resources Iny. $114.65 5 8/17/09 Depo Resources Billing- Iny. 09050 $430.75 6 8/17/09 Depo Resources Billing- Iny. 09091 $117.65 7

10 For the reasons stated herein, this Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion For Attorney's

II Fees and Costs and AWARDS Defendants attorney's fees and costs as follows: 12 (1) the Law Offices of Cunliffe and Cook is awarded $29,620.00 in attorney's 13 fees and 175.60 in costs; and 14 (2) the Law Offices of Lujan Aguigui & Perez LLP is awarded $77,505.79 in 15 attorney's fees and $515.50 in costs. 16

17 IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th of December, 2012. 18

20 HONORABLE RICHARD H. BENSON 21 Senior Pro Tempore Judge, Superior Court of Guam 22

Page 2201'22 CV00166-03