United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 2347

ENDORSEMENT ORDER granting in part Murtha Cullina's fee request 1991 following in camera review of billing records 2286 . Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 9/22/22. (Burman, A.)

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2347 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
Plaintiff,
September 22, 2022
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
Defendant, and
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI
AHMED 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY
TRUST; DIYA HOLDINGS LLC; DIYA REAL
HOLDINGS, LLC; I.I. 1, a minor child, by and
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI
AHMED, his parents; I.I. 2, a minor child, by and
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI
AHMED, his parents; and I.I. 3, a minor child, by and
through his next friends IFTIKAR and SHALINI
AHMED, his parents,
Relief Defendants.

ENDORSEMENT ORDER REGARDING DOCKET # 1991
On March 11, 2021 the Second Circuit remanded this case to the Court for a
determination of Defendant Ahmed’s disgorgement obligation in light of § 6501 of the
National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) [Doc. # 1810]. On March 16, 2021, the Court
ordered the parties to “file memoranda setting out their respective positions and analyses.”
(Order for Briefing on Remand [Doc. # 1801] at 1.) Although the Court had previously
concluded that it would “not entertain any further requests for Relief Defendants’ district
court legal fees until liquidation is complete,” (Order Directing Payment of Fees to Relief
Defs.’ Counsel [Doc. # 1740] at 3), it later determined that it would narrowly compensate
Murtha Cullina for the “reasonable fees it incurred complying with the Court’s order[ed

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2347 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 4

briefing on remand],” (Ruling on Murtha Cullina’s Mot. for Fees [Doc. # 2122] at 4). The Court
therefore directed Murtha Cullina to file “its billing records for the covered period of work
on which a reasonable fee c[ould] be ascertained.” (Id.)
Murtha Cullina asked the Court to release $107,434. (Murtha Cullina’s Supp. Record
for Work Incurred in Connection with NDAA Remand (“Murtha Cullina’s Resp.”) [Doc. # 2128] at
2.) However, the billing records Murtha Cullina submitted were too heavily redacted for the

Court to ascertain whether some entries pertained to the NDAA issue or reflected a
reasonable expenditure of time. (Endorsement Order [Doc. # 2286] at 2.) The Court
therefore directed Murtha Cullina to submit its unredacted billing records for in camera
review. Murth Cullina complied [Doc. # 2302], and now requests $87,298.50 (Id. at 2.)
After full review, for the $48,021 in fees for which the records show time pertained
to the NDAA remand and was reasonably incurred, the Court grants the motion. The Court
denies the motion for $34,315 for the reasons that follow:
•

No detail provided:
DATE
N/A

•

HOURS FEE
2
$1,300.00

Insufficient detail to ascertain relationship to NDAA remand:
DATE
4/18/2021
4/15/2021
4/15/2021
4/16/2021
4/20/2021
4/20/2021
3/16/2021
3/22/2021
4/7/2021
4/9/2021
4/28/2021
4/29/2021
5/3/2021
5/4/2021
5/5/2021

HOURS FEE
4
$2,600.00
0.1
$41.50
0.1
$43.50
0.1
$43.50
1
$435.00
0.9
$337.50
0.5
$325.00
0.2
$87.00
2
$1,300.00
0.1
$43.50
1.5
$937.50
2
$1,300.00
1
$650.00
2
$1,300.00
1
$650.00

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2347 Filed 09/22/22 Page 3 of 4

4/28/2021
4/23/2021
4/23/2021
4/24/2021
4/26/2021
4/27/2021
•

0.6
3.3
0.5
1
0.4
5.4

$249.00
$1,369.50
$312.50
$650.00
$166.00
$2,241.00

Insufficient detail to ascertain reasonableness of time expended:
DATE
6/3/2021
6/15/2021
5/5/2021
5/6/2021
5/10/2021
5/11/2021
5/12/2021
5/13/2021
5/14/2021
5/17/2021
4/8/2021

HOURS FEE
0.5
$325.00
0.2
$130.00
0.2
$83.00
1.8
$1,170.00
1
$625.00
3
$1,950.00
4
$2,600.00
3.5
$2,275.00
5
$3,250.00
7.5
$4,875.00
1
$650.00

The Court partially grants the motion for $3,250 (half the total billed) for entries
where entries combined tasks and there was sufficient information only as to some of the
listed tasks. Those entries are as follows:
•

Insufficient detail to ascertain relationship to NDAA remand:
DATE
HOURS FEE
4/26/2021 2
$1,300.00

•

Insufficient detail to ascertain reasonableness of time expended:
DATE
HOURS FEE
4/27/2021 2
$1,300.00
5/18/2021 6
$3,900.00
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Murtha Cullina’s request for fees for the

NDAA briefing from March 16, 2021 to June 16, 2021 [Doc. # 1991] in the amount of $51,271.
The Reciever is requested to effectuate this payment.

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2347 Filed 09/22/22 Page 4 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________/s/__________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 22nd day of September, 2022