Hofstetter v. Chase Home Finance LLC et al

Filing 256

ORDER REGARDING DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES re 246 MOTION for Attorney Fees - Plaintiffs' Final Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs and Expenses, and Class Representative Reimbursement filed by Sheila I. Hofstetter, Roger Modersbach. Signed by Judge Alsup on November 1, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2011)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

10

Plaintiffs,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

No. C 10-01313 WHA

SHEILA I. HOFSTETTER and ROGER
MODERSBACH, individually and as
representatives of the classes,

12

ORDER REGARDING
DOCUMENTATION
SUPPORTING REQUEST
FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

v.

13

CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC,
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., and
DOES 1 though 50, inclusive,

14

Defendants.

15

/

16
17

The documentation submitted with class counsel’s motion for attorney’s fees is inadequate

18

because it does not enable the Court to determine whether the request is reasonable. Exhibit 2 to

19

the Richter declaration lists all of the individuals who billed time to this matter, but it does not

20

provide any details about those individuals. The attorneys are identified as such, and their levels

21

of experience are disclosed elsewhere, but their standard billing rates are not provided, and their

22

billing rates for this matter are not easily ascertainable from the record. The levels of experience

23

of the non-attorney billers are not disclosed. All of this information must be provided. Exhibit 3

24

to the Richter declaration, a 69-page list of billing line items, is also deficient. It is organized into

25

broad categories, such as “discovery and initial disclosures,” rather than discrete projects, such as

26

specific depositions. Moreover, no subtotals are provided for any of the categories. The reader is

27

left to tabulate hundreds of individual time entries in order to gauge the scope of a particular

28

project or category of work. This form of presenting the information is not useful.

1

By NOON ON NOVEMBER 7, 2011, class counsel must file and serve a detailed declaration,

2

organized by discrete projects, breaking down all attorney and paralegal time sought to be

3

recovered. For each project, there must be a detailed description of the work, giving the date,

4

hours expended, attorney name, and task for each work entry, in chronological order. A “project”

5

means a deposition, a motion, a witness interview, and so forth. It does not mean generalized

6

statements like “trial preparation” or “attended trial.” It includes discrete items like “prepare

7

supplemental trial brief on issue X.” The following is an example of time collected by a project.

8
9

PROJECT: ABC DEPOSITION (2 DAYS IN FRESNO)
Date

Timekeeper

Description

Hours x

Rate =

Fee

01-08-01

XYZ

Assemble and photocopy exhibits for
use in deposition.

2.0

$100

$200

01-09-01

RST

Review evidence and prepare to
examine ABC at deposition.

4.5

$200

$900

14

01-10-01

XYZ

Research issue of work-product
privilege asserted by deponent.

1.5

$100

$150

15

01-11-01

RST

Prepare for and take deposition.

8.5

$200

$1700

16

01-12-01

RST

Prepare for and take deposition.

7.0

$200

$1400

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

17
18

Project Total:

23.5

$4350

All entries for a given project must be presented chronologically one after the other, i.e.,

19

uninterrupted by other projects, so that the timeline for each project can be readily grasped.

20

Entries can be rounded to the nearest quarter-hour and should be net of write-down for

21

inefficiency or other cause. Please show the sub-totals for hours and fees per project, as in the

22

example above, and show grand totals for all projects combined at the end. Include only entries

23

for which compensation is sought, i.e., after application of “billing judgment.”

24

A separate summary chart of total time and fees sought per individual timekeeper (not

25

broken down by project) should also be shown at the end of the declaration. This cross-tabulation

26

will help illuminate all timekeepers’ respective workloads and roles in the overall case.

27
28

The declaration must also set forth (a) the qualifications, experience and role of each
attorney or paralegal for whom fees are sought and whether he or she was a summer intern;
2

1

(b) the normal rate ordinarily charged for each in the relevant time period; (c) how the rates were

2

comparable to prevailing rates in the community for like-skilled professionals; and (d) proof that

3

“billing judgment” was exercised. On the latter point, as before, the declaration should describe

4

adjustments made to eliminate duplication, excess, associate-turnover expense, and so forth.

5

These adjustments need not be itemized but totals for the amount deleted per timekeeper should

6

be stated. The declaration must identify the records used to compile the entries and, specifically,

7

state whether and the extent to which the records were contemporaneous versus retroactively

8

prepared. It must state the extent to which any entries include estimates (and what any estimates

9

were based on). Estimates and/or use of retroactively-made records may or may not be allowed,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

depending on the facts and circumstances.
Ordinarily, no more than one attorney and one paralegal need be present at a deposition;

12

more will normally be deemed excessive. Ordinarily, no more than one attorney need attend a

13

law-and-motion hearing; more will normally be deemed excessive.

14
15

The Court needs the requested documentation to compute the proper lodestar even though
counsel are seeking a percentage of the class recovery.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated: November 1, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3