United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ahmed et al

Filing 2427

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 2354 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/5/23. (Burman, A.)

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2427 Filed 01/05/23 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
IFTIKAR AHMED,
Defendant, and
IFTIKAR ALI AHMED SOLE PROP; I-CUBED Civil No. 3:15cv675 (JBA)
DOMAINS, LLC; SHALINI AHMED; SHALINI
AHMED 2014 GRANTOR RETAINED ANNUITY January 5, 2023
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.

ORDER DENYING MURTHA CULLINA’S MOTION FOR RELEASE OF ADDITIONAL NDAARELATED FEES BASED ON ADDITIONAL SHOWING
On March 11, 2021 the Second Circuit remanded this case to the Court for a
determination of Defendant Iftikar 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
1

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2427 Filed 01/05/23 Page 2 of 5

Murtha Cullina for the “reasonable fees it incurred complying with the Court’s order[ed
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.) 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 directed Murtha Cullina to submit its unredacted billing
records for in camera review. Murtha Cullina complied [Doc. # 2302], and the Court awarded
$51,271.00 of the $87,298.50 Murtha Cullina sought. (Endorsement Order [Doc. # 2347] at
2-3.) The Court denied reimbursement for the remaining fees because the billing entries did
not provide any detail, did not provide sufficient detail for the Court to ascertain the work’s
relationship to the NDAA remand, or did not provide sufficient detail to determine the
reasonableness of the time expended. (Id. at 2-3.)
Murtha Cullina now moves [Doc. # 2354] for additional fees related to the NDAA
remand. In its memorandum, it presents additional explanations and context for some of the
billing entries that the Court denied or reduced in its prior order. (Mem. [Doc. # 2354-1].)
Counsel seeking fees are not required to record in great detail
how each minute of their time was expended. But they are
obliged to keep and present records from which the court may
determine the nature of the work done, and the need for and
the amount of time reasonably required.
Rabin v. Wilson-Coker, 425 F. Supp. 2d 269, 272 (D. Conn. 2006).1 “A court may . . . refuse to
award fees based on time entries that provide a vague description of the work performed.”
Smart SMR of N.Y., Inc. v. Zoning Comm’n of Town of Stratford, 9 F. Supp. 2d 143, 150 (D. Conn.
1998). Courts have rejected for vagueness billing entries such as “work on brief” or

Unless otherwise indicated, internal citations, quotation marks, and other alterations are
omitted throughout in text quoted from court decisions.
1

2

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2427 Filed 01/05/23 Page 3 of 5

“preparation for hearing,” Rabin, 425 F. Supp. 2d at 272, although “[a] court may attempt to
clarify vague entries by looking at the context of adjacent entries,” Rand Whitney
Containerboard v. Town of Montville, Civ. No. 3:96CV413 (HBF), 2006 WL 2839236, *16 (D.
Conn. Sept. 5, 2006).
Furthermore, when courts have permitted attorneys fees only for work relating to a
specific issue, courts have disallowed fees for billing entries with “vague descriptions that do
not identify clearly the relationship between the work described, and the [issue for which
fees are being awarded].” Bravia Cap. Partners, Inc. v. Fike, 296 F.R.D. 136, 145 (S.D.N.Y.
2013); see also CSL Silicones, Inc. v. Midsun Grp. Inc., 3:14-cv-01897 (CSH), 2017 WL 1399630,
*7 n.12 (D. Conn. Apr. 18, 2017) (awarding fees for work done in connection to a specific
motion where the billing entry clearly stated the motion that the time billed was related to).
Courts have also declined to award fees for work done on a single issue when billing entries
reference multiple issues, “make it impossible for the court to parse” what time was spent
on the compensable issue. Conn. Hous. Fin. Auth. V. Eno Farms. Ltd. P’ship, Civ. No.
3:07cv319(AHN), 2007 WL 1670130, *5 n.5 (D. Conn. June. 6, 2007).
Bearing these principles in mind, the Court again declines to award Murtha Cullina
fees for the following entries because they either do not specify that the work was related to
the NDAA remand or contain entries for work done on multiple issues, including the NDAA
remand. Murtha Cullina’s attempt to identify the subject of the entries after the fact is
inconsistent with the requirement that “time records submitted in support of an attorney's
application for fees . . . be made contemporaneously with the associated work.” Williams v.
N.Y. City Hous. Auth., 975 F. Supp. 317, 328 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). Many of these entries are also
vague, containing statements such as “attention to additional research” or “worked on brief.”
Date
4/15/2021
4/18/2021
4/20/2021
4/23/2021

Hours Fee
0.1
$41.50
4
$2,600.00
1
$435.00
3.3
$1,369.50
3

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2427 Filed 01/05/23 Page 4 of 5

4/23/2021
4/27/2021
4/28/2021
4/29/2021
5/3/2021
5/4/2021
5/5/2021
5/5/2021
5/6/2021
5/10/2021
5/11/2021
5/12/2021
5/13/2021
5/14/2021
5/17/2021
6/3/2021
6/15/2021

0.5
5.4
0.6
2
1
2
0.2
1
1.8
1
3
4
3.5
5
7.5
0.5
0.2

$312.50
$2,241.00
$249.00
$1,300.00
$650.00
$1,300.00
$83.00
$650.00
$1,170.00
$625.00
$1,950.00
$2,600.00
$2,275.00
$3,250.00
$4,875.00
$325.00
$130.00

The Court also again declines to award Murtha Cullina fees for two entries that, while
explicitly stating their relationship to the remand, are impermissibly vague, preventing the
Court from assessing whether the time expended was reasonable.
Date
Hours Fee
4/8/2021 1
$650.00
4/28/2021 1.5
$937.50
However, the Court grants Murtha Cullina fees for two entries that, although not explicitly
stating their relationship to the NDAA remand, are clearly related to the remand when read
in the context of the surrounding entries.
Date
Hours Fee
3/16/2021 0.5
$325.00
4/20/2021 0.9
$337.50
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART Murtha Cullina’s request for additional fees
for the NDAA briefing from March 16, 2021 to June 16, 2021 [Doc. # 2354] in the amount of
$662.50.
4

Case 3:15-cv-00675-JBA Document 2427 Filed 01/05/23 Page 5 of 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________/s/_________________
Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 5th day of January 2023

5