Faizi v. Temori
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:22-cv-04224
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Faizi v. Temori, Judge Demarchi granted in part and denied in part a fee application, awarding Falafel Flame $10,862.50 in fees and $434.28 in costs.
Falafel Flame received an award of $10,862.50 in attorney’s fees and $434.28 in costs. Defendants were ordered to deposit the total $11,296.78 into an escrow account established by Mr. Faizi for Falafel Flame’s benefit.
What happened
In Faizi v. Temori, the court considered a fee application filed after an earlier order concerning defendants’ alleged violation of a preliminary injunction. Defendants did not respond to the application.
The court granted the application in part and denied it in part. It awarded Falafel Flame $10,862.50 in attorney’s fees and $434.28 in costs, rather than the full amounts requested, and required defendants to deposit $11,296.78 into an escrow account by May 5, 2023.
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi explained that the court excluded unsupported charges, work by unidentified timekeepers, and time that was not shown to relate to the contempt motion. The order was entered on April 21, 2023.
The detailed version
- Faizi v. Temori · No. 5:22-cv-04224
- Virginia Demarchi
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
The court had previously granted in part and denied in part Ahmad Mukhtar Faizi’s motion seeking a finding that defendants violated the court’s October 2022 preliminary injunction. In that earlier order, the court stated that Falafel Flame could recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with the contempt motion and set a schedule for a fee application.
Plaintiff’s counsel requested $11,660.50 for work by the Emran Law Firm, $5,805.00 for work by the Law Office of Kenneth Seligson, and $494.28 in costs incurred by the Emran Law Firm. Defendants were given an opportunity to respond but filed no opposition or other response.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the lodestar method, which calculates a reasonable fee by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate. The application used a $250 hourly rate for Harris Emran and Kenneth Seligson. Although both attorneys stated that their customary rate was $350 per hour, they charged $250 per hour for this case. The court found that $250 per hour was within the range of rates prevailing in the Northern District of California for similar work.
The court denied fees for work performed by timekeepers identified only as “SN,” “MC,” and “AG,” because counsel did not identify them or support the hourly rates claimed for their work.
For Emran’s work, the court deducted time for activities that were not shown to concern the contempt motion, including work involving initial disclosures, discovery planning, and a generic meeting-preparation entry. It awarded $6,212.50 for Emran’s work.
For Seligson’s work, the court deducted time involving the case-management order, mediation, discovery, a discovery plan, and a mediation brief because those activities were not shown to concern the contempt motion. It awarded $4,650.00 for Seligson’s work.
The receipts and invoices supported only $434.28 in costs, rather than the $494.28 requested.
Disposition
Judge Virginia K. Demarchi granted in part and denied in part the fee application. The court awarded Falafel Flame $10,862.50 in attorney’s fees and $434.28 in costs, for a total of $11,296.78, in connection with the contempt motion. Defendants were ordered to deposit that amount into the escrow account established by Mr. Faizi for Falafel Flame’s benefit by May 5, 2023.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.