Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-01391
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Sharbat v. Iovance: Judge Ramos granted Iovance’s motion for attorneys’ fees after reviewing corrected billing records.
Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.’s request for attorneys’ fees was granted against Solomon Sharbat, Solomon Capital LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, and Shelhav Raff.
What happened
In Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc., Iovance asked the court to award attorneys’ fees under a finder’s fee agreement and California law. The request followed earlier rulings that dismissed or rejected the plaintiffs’ claims.
The court had required Iovance to submit updated billing records after reducing the hourly rates for a junior associate and a paralegal. Iovance submitted records seeking $591,064.70, and the court found that the revised records were sufficient to calculate the fees.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Iovance’s motion for attorneys’ fees under the agreement and California Civil Code § 1717(a).
The detailed version
- Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01391
- Edgardo Ramos
- Sept. 6, 2024
Background
Solomon Sharbat, Solomon Capital LLC, Solomon Capital 401(K) Trust, and Shelhav Raff sued Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. and Manish Singh. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that Iovance breached a finder’s fee agreement. The case also included claims for unjust enrichment and indemnification against Iovance, and fraud and conversion claims against Singh.
Earlier in the case, the court dismissed all claims against Singh and dismissed several claims against Iovance. The court later granted Iovance summary judgment on the remaining unjust-enrichment and indemnification claims, closing the case. Iovance then sought attorneys’ fees under the MBA Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717(a), a statute addressing attorney-fee provisions in contracts.
Fee request and updated records
In an earlier order, the court granted Iovance’s motion for attorneys’ fees but reduced the hourly rates for junior associate Chinelo Ikem and paralegal Regina Dukach. The court also found that Iovance’s prior billing submissions did not provide enough information to calculate the revised amount because they did not identify the hourly rate for each billing entry or allocate the total requested amount among the attorneys and paralegal.
The court directed Iovance to submit updated billing records reflecting the reduced rates and excluding entries for which Iovance was not seeking payment. Iovance submitted updated records seeking a total of $591,064.70. The court found that the revised records sufficiently allowed it to determine the attorneys’ fees. It also relied on its earlier finding that the hours claimed were not padded or excessive and that counsel had not used improper block billing.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Iovance’s motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to the MBA Agreement and California Civil Code § 1717(a). The opinion does not separately state a new final dollar amount in its conclusion; it states that the motion was granted after review of the updated billing records.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.