Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 6, 2024

Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-01391
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Fee PetitionContractCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Sharbat v. Iovance: Judge Ramos granted Iovance’s motion for attorneys’ fees after reviewing corrected billing records.

Who this affects

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

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Sharbat v. Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-01391
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
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.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.