The opinion of the court was delivered by: GUSTAVE DIAMOND, Senior District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT
On September 29, 2005, this court issued an opinion and entered
an order granting in part and denying in part the petition and
revised fee petition of the plaintiff class for an award of
attorney's fees and expenses. (Document No. 649). Pursuant to
that order, judgment in the amount of $310,281.52 was entered in
favor of the plaintiff class and against the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD").
Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration
(Document No. 650) of that order, specifically objecting to the
court's 20% reduction of fees for duplication and excessiveness, and HUD has filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion. (Document
No. 652). The court will grant plaintiffs' motion to reconsider.
However, upon reconsideration, the court finds no basis for
altering its prior decision.
The legal principles upon which the court arrived at the
challenged 20% reduction to the number of hours requested are
well-settled and were set forth in detail, not only in the
court's September 29, 2005, opinion, but also in its March 14,
2001, opinion relating to interim fees. Fundamentally, the number
of hours expended on the services rendered must be reasonable.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Accordingly, in
arriving at a reasonable fee, the number of hours claimed can
be reduced for a variety of reasons, including the reasonableness
of time expended on a particular task and duplication of effort.
Ursic v. Bethlehem Mines, 729 F.2d 670, 677 (3d Cir. 1983).
As it did in its March of 2001 opinion, the court in its
September of 2005 opinion employed the fair approach of "simply
deducting a small percentage of the total hours to eliminate
duplication of services." Northcross v. Board of Education of
Memphis City Schools, 611 F.2d 624, 637 (6th Cir. 1979).
Utilizing this approach, the court determined that a 20%
reduction in the number of hours claimed by each counsel for
excessiveness and duplication of services was necessary and
appropriate to ensure that the fees that plaintiff counsel
received were reasonable. Upon reconsideration, the court still is convinced that the 20%
across the board reduction was appropriate and is supported by
the billing records submitted by class counsel. These records
demonstrate that many of the hours claimed involved conferences
and consultations among the various attorneys seeking fees. The
court reviewed six years' worth of billing records in arriving at
its prior decision, and, upon additional review, remains
convinced that the number of hours claimed by counsel for
plaintiff class in fact were unreasonable. Under these
circumstances, a 20% reduction is fair in order to ensure that
class counsel are compensated only for a reasonable number of
An appropriate order will be entered.
AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2005, plaintiff class
having filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this court's order
of September 29, 2005, and the United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development having filed a response, for the
reasons set forth in the memorandum above, IT IS ORDERED that
plaintiff's motion, be, and the same hereby is, granted, and,
upon reconsideration, the court finds no basis to alter the
court's order dated September 29, 2005.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...