Fee Dispute Hotline
(312) 907-7275

Assisting with High-Stakes Attorney Fee Disputes

The NALFA

News Blog

Article: Cautionary Tales on Recovering Attorney Fees in the Third Circuit

April 16, 2019

A recent Legal Intelligencer article by Colin Wrabley and Devin Misour of Reed Smith LLP, “Cautionary Tales on Recovering Attorney Fees in the Third Circuit,” reports on a trio of appellate decisions and trial court rulings on the recovery of attorney fees in the Third Circuit.  This article was posted with permission.  The article reads:

In the past year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has issued three precedential rulings laying down clear and strict limits on the recovery of attorney fees. While these kinds of rulings rarely draw attention, this trio of appellate decisions and the trial court rulings they affirm should because they are emphatic reminders that courts take their duty in reviewing fee petitions and awards just as seriously as they do in any other case. Practitioners and their clients should take heed.

The Cases

The first case we’ll discuss, Young v. Smith, 905 F.3d 229 (3d Cir. 2018), is perhaps the most glaring example of how a fee petition can go wrong. The appellant attorney in that case represented a group of students who brought a 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 civil rights suit against a school district and a teacher. After two trials, the lone remaining defendant (the teacher) made an offer of judgment for $25,000, which the plaintiffs accepted, and the parties’ entered a settlement agreement allowing for “reasonable attorney fees and costs as to the claims against the teacher only.” Plaintiffs counsel proceeded to submit a petition seeking over $700,000 in fees and costs against the school district, which had won a complete defense verdict. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the district court thought the fee request excessive and issued a show cause order. Plaintiffs counsel responded with a 44-page, single-spaced, six- or eight-point font fee petition purporting to justify the request. That prompted, in the Third Circuit’s words, a “scathing 136-page opinion” from the district court denying all requested fees, levying a $25,000 sanction on the plaintiffs counsel, and referring counsel to the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board.

The Third Circuit affirmed. The court of appeals focused on the problems with the plaintiffs counsel’s billing practices, noting that the “district court’s meticulous opinion paints a picture of an attorney whose attitude toward billing and the court is cavalier in the extreme and whose conduct and demeanor bear no relationship whatsoever to an attorney’s obligations to the court.” Concluding that Section 1988 gives a district court the discretion to reject a fee petition in its entirety, the Third Circuit found that the fee petition was “not only grossly excessive and absurd, but also fraudulent.”

The second case, Clemens v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance, 903 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2018), involved a fee award under Pennsylvania’s bad faith statute. There, after settling an uninsured motorist claim for $25,000 and obtaining a jury verdict of $100,000 in punitive damages on the bad faith claim, plaintiffs counsel submitted a fee petition seeking in excess of $900,000 in fees and costs. Here again, the district court scrutinized counsel’s request, which resulted in a 100-page opinion rejecting the petition in its entirety. The district court reviewed every one of counsel’s time entries and found that 87 percent of the hours billed had to be disallowed as “vague, duplicative, unnecessary or inadequately supported by documentary evidence.”

On appeal, the Third Circuit found that the denial of this petition was not an abuse of discretion either. Of note, the attorney kept no contemporaneous records of his time, so everything had to be recreated after the fact for purposes of the petition. And when the attorney did recreate those records, he did so largely with one-word explanations, such as “other,” “communicate,” “analysis/strategy, or “review/analyze,” with no other explanation. The court of appeals also highlighted the “staggering 562 hours” billed for trial preparation, which amounted to 70 straight eight-hour days of preparation for a four-day trial with only five witnesses. On this record, the Third Circuit held that the district court was well within its discretion to reject the fee petition in its entirety because it was “outrageously excessive.”

The third case involved an award of attorney fees to defendants after the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Carroll v. E One, 893 F.3d 139 (3d Cir. 2018), the plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered hearing loss caused by fire sirens manufactured by the defendant. But the defendant’s investigation and discovery revealed that the plaintiffs—some of whom did not even know that they were parties to a lawsuit until after the case was filed—had asserted time-barred claims, and at least one of the plaintiffs did not suffer from hearing loss attributable to noise exposure. Armed with this information, the defendant’s counsel sought voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs could not voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice—as they had tried to do—and instead dismissed the case with prejudice and awarded fees and costs to the defendants.

The Third Circuit affirmed, finding that dismissal with prejudice and the award of fees and costs was appropriate given the plaintiffs’ “failure to perform a meaningful pre-suit investigation,” coupled with counsel’s “repeated practice of bringing claims and dismissing them with prejudice after inflicting substantial costs on the opposing party and the judicial system.” Addressing plaintiffs’ pre-filing investigation, the court of appeals noted that even a cursory review of the evidence or an interview with the potential plaintiffs would have revealed the problems with their case. Having failed to do so, the court concluded that the “exceptional circumstances” warranted an award of fees and costs.

The Takeaways

If you’re a practitioner, you may be thinking, “I’ve never filed a fee petition like the ones in these cases” or “I’ve never conducted such a slipshod pre-filing investigation” of claims I’ve filed. So, why do these cases—and understanding how they were decided and why—matter to me? There are plenty of reasons.

First, the legal principles outlined in each of these cases hinged on a district court’s broad discretion in the context of attorney fees. Whether it is a denial of fees sought—as in Young and Clemens—or an award of fees in the Rule 41 context—as in Carroll—it is important to remember that the courts have a wide berth in deciding how much, if any, fees should be awarded. This is equally true before the trial court in the first instance and on appellate review. Litigants therefore must keep this in mind when preparing and filing a fee petition to avoid any unwanted surprises once the court explores into the substance of the request.

Second, when the court (either trial or appellate) does dig into that substance, no one wants their fee petition to become the next teachable moment. It should go without saying that parties seeking fees and costs must be scrupulous about how they keep time, record it and present it to the court. On a practical level, this means that counsel and their clients should file user-friendly fee petitions that allow the court to quickly determine what was done (consistent with the attorney-client privilege), how long it took and at what cost. From that, a “lodestar” fee calculation—based on a reasonable rate and a reasonable amount of time worked, which is how federal courts determine fee awards—easily follows. As the Third Circuit reminded in Clemens, while courts “have never strictly required that fee petitions be supported by contemporaneous records … they have long been ‘the preferred practice.’” Needless to say, avoiding six- or eight-point fonts in petitions is also prudent.

Third and above all else, these cases serve as an important reminder that—perhaps contrary to conventional wisdom—courts can, and often do, spend significant time and resources on reviewing fee petitions. The trial court opinions in Young and Clemens tipped the scales at 100-plus pages and reflected a substantial investment of judicial energy. And the Third Circuit decisions discussed above—each published, one argued orally—were relatively extensive and reflected the same commitment of resources. In other words, don’t hope or expect courts to gloss over questionable or deficient fee requests.

Accordingly, while these cases may be outliers, they offer important lessons about what counsel can do to make life easier for the courts tasked with reviewing even innocuous filings (like fee petitions). By taking steps to carefully consider how courts will receive petitions, counsel can help to save judicial resources and ultimately better serve their clients.

Colin Wrabley is a Reed Smith partner and a member of the firm’s appellate group. He has experience counseling and representing clients in litigations and substantive legal issues before state and federal courts across the country.  Devin Misour is an associate at the firm and a member of the appellate group. He focuses his practice on a wide array of substantive legal matters including False Claims Act, regulatory matters and issues involving state and federal laws.

Article: Fee Award Highlights Patent Litigation in Claims Court

April 15, 2019

A recent Law 360 article by Matthew Rizzolo and Steve Meil of Ropes & Gray LLP, “Fee Award Highlights Patent Litigation in Claims Court,” reports on patent attorney fee awards in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.  This article was posted with permission.  This article was originally published in Law 360.  The article reads:

Subject to certain exceptions, patent litigation in the United States typically adheres to the “American rule”: Each party pays its own attorney fees, win or lose. But many may not be aware that assertions of patent infringement against the United States government itself are not governed by this same rule, making it easier for some successful plaintiffs to recover attorney fees at the conclusion of litigation.

A recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Federal Claims awarding a plaintiff more than $4 million in attorney fees explains the different standard in detail, and may lead to increased interest in bringing patent claims against the government.

Section 1498 Actions and Attorney Fees

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over patent infringement suits brought against the federal government. Because “infringement” by the government is generally treated as a Fifth Amendment taking of a license to use a patented invention, plaintiffs in such suits cannot receive injunctive relief, but are limited only to “reasonable and entire compensation” for the use or manufacture of the patented invention by or for the government.

Originally, the statute did not clarify whether “reasonable and entire compensation” included costs and attorney fees; the Court of Federal Claims has also found that Section 1498 claims are not directly analogous to other takings claims. It therefore determined that the Equal Access to Justice Act (the statute that typically provides for attorney fee awards in claims against the government) did not apply to Section 1498 claims, leaving patent owners with no avenue to obtain attorney fees even in the most egregious Section 1498 cases.

Recognizing this disparity between the taking of real property and intellectual property, in 1996 Congress amended Section 1498(a) to expressly provide awards of “reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys.”  The sponsors of the amendment noted that without the ability to recover fees, small businesses in particular may be unable to afford the expense of defending patents against government expropriation.

Accordingly, Congress limited the awards to certain types of plaintiffs: independent inventors, nonprofit organizations, and small businesses with less than 500 employees. Congress further limited the awards to exclude cases where “the position of the United States was substantially justified” (mirroring the language of the Equal Access to Justice Act), or where “special circumstances make an award unjust.”

The ability to recover attorney fees as a “default” stands in sharp contrast to typical patent infringement suits, where plaintiffs — even small businesses or nonprofits — recover fees only “in exceptional cases.”  As Congress observed, however, suits against the government “authorize the government to take a license in any patent,” making such suits more analogous to takings of real property than to private infringement suits.

The Fee Award in Hitkansut v. United States

Yet in the near quarter-century since Section 1498 was amended, the Court of Federal Claims has handed down only three decisions on awards of attorney fees. The previous cases, decided well over a decade ago, both resulted in the Court of Federal Claims denying fees.  But on March 15, 2019, the court for the first time awarded a successful plaintiff attorney fees under Section 1498.

In Hitkansut LLC et al. v. United States, the court had previously found that the government used Hitkansut’s patented invention, and awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages. While Hitkansut had sought nearly $6 million in compensatory damages, the court found that much of these requested damages were not appropriate under the law. The court’s prior infringement and damages findings were affirmed on appeal, and Hitkansut subsequently sought to recover its attorney fees and litigation expenses: $4.51 million. In a thorough and detailed opinion, the court granted Hitkansut the vast majority of its fee request.

The court first addressed the fact that Hitkansut had engaged in a contingency fee arrangement with its attorneys. The government argued that this meant that Hitkansut had not “actually incurred” any fees, disqualifying it from any award. But the court observed that the fee arrangement was irrelevant, noting that “[a]ccepting the government’s argument would ... dissuade litigation by the very class of people the fee-shifting provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) exists to help.”  Because “[t]he patent owners most likely to use contingent arrangements are those ... specifically identified by the statute,” the court found that the fact of a contingent arrangement should not impact an award of costs.

The court then considered whether the government’s position in the suit was “substantially justified.” Adopting the standard from the Equal Access to Justice Act, the court explained that a position is “substantially justified” when it is “justified to a degree that could satisfy a reasonable person, which is no different from the ‘reasonable basis both in law and fact’ formulation.”  In the court’s view, an award depends on whether the government can demonstrate that the positions it took “were such that a reasonable person could conclude that its position was supportable,” taking into account both pre- and post-litigation conduct.

Applying this standard, the court found that the government’s positions on both non-infringement and invalidity lacked substantial justification. Regarding potential infringement, the court observed that the government had (1) altered its research activity in line with disclosures Hitkansut had made to the government under a confidentiality agreement; (2) represented the opposite of claims their employees had made in invention disclosures and in depositions; and (3) advanced arguments inconsistent with the court’s claim construction.

As for validity, the court found the government’s arguments to be “unsupported by the facts”: the government failed to demonstrate either part of the Alice test, and its own witnesses’ testimony undermined its obviousness and enablement arguments.  Finally, the court found that the government’s success in arguing matters secondary to the “primary issue” of infringement did not alter whether its overall position was supportable. It concluded that, “the government’s position may not be substantially justified even though it may have taken certain reasonable stances during the dispute.”

Having decided that fees should be awarded, the court then turned to what constitutes “reasonable” fees under Section 1498(a). The court first denied the portion of fees expended in pursuing other similar suits as “not reasonably related” to the case, and reduced fees where they exceeded prevailing local rates. The court then considered whether to increase or decrease the total fee, where “the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained.”

The government argued that (1) because damages were reduced to 5% of those sought, fees should be reduced proportionately; and (2) the requested fees should be capped at the amount of damages. But the court rejected both of these arguments, finding the reduction in damages was unrelated to the primary issue of infringement, and that the remaining award — even where Hitkansut proved infringement of only some of the claims — indicated a sufficient degree of success.

Notably, the court found that the purpose of the fee-shifting portion of the statute is “to accommodate suits where the cost to bring the suit could not be recovered from the damages awarded.”  As a result, there was no reason that fees could not greatly exceed actual damages — even where, as here, the fees exceeded compensatory damages by a factor of 20.

Possible Implications

While the court’s decision in Hitkansut is likely to be appealed, it may lead to increased consideration from patent owners in bringing Section 1498 patent actions against the government (currently, only a handful of such suits are filed each year). A common refrain among patent owners in recent years has been that it is too expensive to enforce patents.  Indeed, the high cost of litigation leads many patentees, especially those with a relative lack of resources, to outsource enforcement to patent assertion entities, or rely on contingency arrangements and/or litigation funders to assist with litigation.

For those patent owners who believe that their patents may be used by the U.S. government and/or government contractors, the court may be an avenue to seek compensation for infringement, with the knowledge that they may have a substantial chance at recovering their attorney fees and other expenses — in sharp contrast to suits against private entities.

Additionally, the prospect of a substantial fee award may lead to the government entering into settlements in these cases at higher levels than it may have previously. And the increased attention for Section 1498 actions may come from more than just independent inventors or nonprofit organizations — given that many nonpracticing entities, even publicly traded ones, likely fall below the 500-employee threshold, they may also increase their activity at the Court of Federal Claims.

Finally, the Hitkansut court’s decision to award fees in the face of the plaintiff’s contingency arrangement may also attract firms who work on alternative fee and contingency arrangements, as well as litigation funding entities, to explore becoming involved in Section 1498(a) actions.

Matthew J. Rizzolo is a partner and Steve Meil is an associate at Ropes & Gray LLP.  For the full text of this article, including footnotes, visit https://www.law360.com/articles/1149324/fee-award-highlights-patent-litigation-in-claims-court.

Eleventh Circuit: No Added Attorney Fees for Defending Fees

April 12, 2019

A recent Law 360 story by Nathan Hale, “No Added Atty Fees in Nationstar Case, 11th Circ. Says,” reports that a Florida woman who won a judgment against Nationstar Mortgage LLC for charging improper fees is not entitled under state law to collect appellate attorney fees for her counsel's work defending an initial attorney fees award in the case, the Eleventh Circuit ruled.  The federal appeals court backed a lower court's decision to deny Sara Alhassid's request for attorney fees covering Nationstar's appeal based on a finding that the benefit would be purely for her attorneys and that she has no obligation to pay them for this work.

The appeals panel said it agreed with the district court that the controlling case on the issue is the Second District of Florida's ruling in B & L Motors Inc. v. Bignotti.  In that case, the state appeals court found that if a plaintiff has no interest in a fee award because it would not affect her payment obligation to her attorneys, then the plaintiff may not receive a fee award under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, according to the opinion.

“B & L Motors is exceedingly clear that a prevailing plaintiff may receive fees under FDUTPA only if a 'fee award is found to be in the interests of the client and if the fee arrangement is found to have contemplated payment for that work,'” the Eleventh Circuit said.  “Because we do not lightly disregard binding, on-point decisions of intermediate state appellate courts, we hold that B & L Motors compels the denial of appellate attorneys’ fees in this case.”

Alhassid's counsel, Reuven T. Herssein of Herssein Law Group PA, said that his side intends to seek an en banc rehearing of the decision, which he said promotes meritless appeals by mortgage companies and other large institutions and has a chilling effect on plaintiffs who bring and litigate these cases.  "In light of this decision, plaintiffs attorneys will shy away from taking on these kind of cases since we won on the merits of the appeal and the appellate court’s decision means we are not paid for the successful result we obtained for our client in the appellate court," he said.

According to the opinion, Alhassid's attorneys had said that they “took this case on a contingency basis,” and the district court found that meant that any fees resulting from the appeal of the fee award would “inure solely to the benefit of plaintiff's attorneys and not to plaintiff herself.”

The dispute stems from Bank of America's decision to place Alhassid’s reverse mortgage in default for failure to pay flood insurance on her property.  After acquiring Alhassid’s mortgage and note in April 2013, Nationstar called her loan due and payable and started a foreclosure action on the property in January 2014, according to case records.  Alhassid filed the suit as a proposed class action against Bank of America NA and Nationstar in February 2014 and was joined by Sarah Drennen in August 2014.  The two women filed their third amended complaint in December 2014, bringing three breach-of-contract claims, a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the FDUTPA claim and a claim of violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

They alleged the two companies charged improper fees, placed loans in default when borrowers did not pay those fees and then charged more unlawful fees after the defaults, according to the opinion.  The district court in Miami denied class certification in August 2015, finding that the nine class definitions didn’t show commonality and only individualized evidence could prove wrongdoing.  The claims against Bank of America were ultimately dismissed voluntarily, but Alhassid won summary judgment against Nationstar on all but the good-faith and fair-dealing claim, which the court found to be duplicative, the opinion said.

Alhassid was awarded $5,000 in actual damages and $1,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA, according the opinion.  The district court also found that she was entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party under the FDUTPA and awarded her $435,704 in fees.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the award on appeal.  The case is Alhassid v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, case number 18-11985, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Class Attorneys Earn $3M in $9.85M in US Airways Settlement

April 11, 2019

A recent Law 360 story by Dean Seal, “Class Attys Get $3M Cut of $9.85M US Airways Deal,” reports that three law firms in coastal California will get about 30% of the $9.85 million settlement they negotiated with US Airways Inc. to resolve nearly decade-old breach of contract claims over baggage delays.  U.S. Magistrate Judge Virginia K DeMarchi said that the $3 million in attorney fees and expenses requested by Karczag and Associates PC, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP and the Law Office of William M. Aron is fair given the 1,850 hours and $45,000 they’ve spent on settling the somewhat recently revived class action.

“The attorneys’ fees requested in the amount of $2,955,000 represents a multiplier of 3.11, which is reasonable and justified based on: the difficult and novel legal challenges faced by class counsel in this case; the risks and financial burdens that class counsel undertook in litigating this case on a fully contingent basis; and the significant benefits that are being made available to the class members under the settlement,” Judge DeMarchi said.

The judge’s final approval of settlement will net about $14 per person for a class of more than 400,000 flyers who traveled on US Airways between November 2005 and April 2010, reported checked baggage that was lost or delayed and were not refunded their $15 baggage fee.  The airline merged with American Airlines Inc. in 2013. 

The order also allots a $10,000 award for plaintiff and class representative Hayley Hickcox-Huffman.  Hickcox-Huffman said in her 2010 complaint that after she paid a $15 checked baggage fee, she received her luggage a day late following a 2009 US Airways flight from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to San Luis Obispo, California.  Hickcox-Huffman’s case was dismissed in 2011 on grounds that it was preempted by the federal Airline Deregulation Act, but the Ninth Circuit ruled in May 2017 that Hickcox-Huffman properly pled an express breach of contract that US Airways voluntarily entered into, defeating the preemption argument.

The appellate panel, in reviving the suit, cited the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court case American Airlines Inc. v. Wolens, which held that state law breach of contract claims are not preempted.

At a hearing in October 2017, counsel for Hickcox-Huffman argued that she should not have to decide between her implied and express contract claims until after discovery, when the court is expected to learn more about the agreement between the airline and its passengers paying for checked baggage.

A judge ruled soon after that both types of breach could be alleged, but tossed Hickcox-Huffman’s breach of federal common law and “breach of self-imposed undertaking” claims, finding them redundant and not actionable.  The case proceeded into discovery but was ultimately resolved after a two-day mediation session, according to court records.

Second Circuit Upholds Attorney Fee Reduction in FACTA Settlement

April 10, 2019

A recent New York Law Journal story by Colby Hamilton, “Second Circuit Upholds Judge’s Slashing Attorney Fees in Fair Credit Law Settlement,” reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a Manhattan federal judge’s order to cut down a fee request in a Fair Credit Reporting Act lawsuit, finding she had properly exercised her discretion, over arguments to the contrary from the plaintiff’s attorneys.  The Second Circuit ruling upheld a decision entered last May in which U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York refused to allow attorneys to collect approximately $83,000 in fees in their Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) case.

The plaintiff in the underlying matter, Joan Pasini, had brought two other suits in Manhattan federal court under the exact same premises.  In the Godiva suit, she ultimately secured a $5,500 settlement with the chocolate maker, after opting out of a class action settlement that would have awarded her up to $80.

As Caproni noted in her order, the Godiva action involved “no motion practice, no discovery, no contested hearings, a single status conference, which lasted less than 30 minutes, two telephone conferences, which also lasted about 15 to 30 minutes each, and one mediation session.”

The district court found there was “nothing reasonable” about the $83,000 figure submitted by Glendale, California, attorney Chant Yedalian and local counsel, attorney Sameer Birring.  Rather, the litigators were using FACTA as a “cudgel to attempt to extract an unreasonable fee.”

“Attorneys who take on consumer protection lawsuits are sometimes pursuing a public good—the individual damages are generally quite modest but there is a public interest in ensuring compliance with federal consumer protection laws,” the district court wrote.  “Counsel is entitled to recover reasonable fees, but this court will not aid and abet extortion.”

The 10-page complaint in the underlying suit replicates claims similar to the other FACTA suits brought by Pasini.  She claimed the chocolatier printed out a receipt for a credit card transaction that included the first six digits and the last four digits of the card number.  Under FACTA, no more than the last five digits of the card number are allowed to be on a receipt provided to the cardholder.

After opting out of the settlement and an initial figure from the chocolatier of the statutory settlement maximum of $1,000, Pasini demanded a $75,000 payment from Godiva, according to court papers.

The suit was filed March 10, 2017. On Sept. 29, the parties alerted the court that the settlement amount for the plaintiff had been agreed to for the far smaller sum of $5,500, but Godiva stated to the court that attorney fees remained an issue.  Attorneys for Godiva argued in opposition to the fees that counsels’ “aim throughout this case has been to generate the maximum amount of attorneys’ fees possible.”

Caproni agreed, finding the hourly rates proposed by opposing counsel in the “exceedingly straightforward case” exorbitant.  She cut Yedalian’s requested fee range of $550 to $650 an hour down to a “generous” $350 an hour, while bringing Birring’s $350 an hour requested rate down to $275.

Similarly, Yedalian’s 152 hours of billable work was “so out of proportion to the tasks he purportedly undertook” that Caproni said she had to “question the accuracy of the bills.”  All but five hours of the claimed time “was spent on low-level work that could have been accomplished by an associate or paralegal; tasks any competent attorney (much less one with 15 years of experience practicing in an area of the law that is neither sophisticated nor intellectually challenging) could have accomplished far more quickly.”

Caproni ultimately cut Yedalian’s hours billable at the new rate by 90 percent, leaving him with an entitled fee of $5,325.83, while Birring was, at a reduction of 65 percent to his hours, granted $1,020.25 in fees.  With the reduced costs of $620 provided to the plaintiff, Caproni’s order amounted to less than 10 percent of what Pasini sought.

On appeal, the panel of Circuit Judges John Walker Jr., José Cabranes and Robert Sack said Caproni was within her right to the substantial reduction “in light of the pervasive errors and exaggerations in the fee application.”  The panel went on to likewise support the district court’s gutting of travel fees for Yedalian, as “there was no reason local counsel could not attend the initial status conference instead of lead counsel from California.”