IMPERIAL Pacific International LLC. is opposing Joshua Gray’s motion for attorney’s fees, saying it should be less than what was being asked.
Gray has prevailed in his discrimination lawsuit against IPI and was awarded by the federal court a total of $5,686,182.20 in compensatory and punitive damages.
Gray, represented by attorney Aaron Halegua, submitted a fifth petition for attorney’s fees seeking an award from the court of $232,730.25 in fees and $33,921.74 in costs against IPI.
IPI, through attorney Michael Chen, stated that it opposes the motion “because a few categories of attorney’s fees for which Plaintiff seeks compensation are unwarranted, as well as the number of hours for which plaintiff seeks compensation are unreasonable.”
“No fee may be awarded for services on an unsuccessful claim,” Chen added.
According to the lawyer, “plaintiff made claims for back pay, front pay, emotional distress, loss of future earnings, and punitive damages.”
Citing a previous order of the court, Chen said, “The court declined to award front pay to plaintiff.”
“As such, no fee may be awarded for services on the claim for front pay. Attorneys for plaintiff asked for $4,344.90 for services related to the claim of front pay where the phrase ‘front pay’ was specifically mentioned in the time entries provided by plaintiff’s counsels,” Chen said.
“It is also very likely that counsels for plaintiff may have billed their hours for time spent on this losing claim with much more vague billing entries, such as ‘Edit J Gary Brief,’ ” Chen added.
The IPI attorney asked the court to “exercise its sound discretion to adjust downwards for the vague time entries.”
He said no fee may be awarded for services that only benefit the attorneys.
“Plaintiff’s counsel billed a total of three hours at the rate of $400 for preparing a fee agreement with his co-counsel, conflict waiver, reviewing fee agreement with his client, and revising the retainer agreement,” Chen noted
IPI believes that the “plaintiff himself would not agree to such billing because it does not advance the interests of plaintiff. If such hours cannot be properly billed to plaintiff, they are not properly billed to defendant either,” Chen added.
Fees for travel time may not be awarded, Chen likewise said.
“One attorney for plaintiff billed a total of 3.2 hours at the rate of $300 for time spent traveling to and from the CNMI District Court,” he said.
“To award plaintiff’s counsel with the requested fees for his travel time at the $300 hourly rate, defendant would request additional credible documentation that demonstrates plaintiff have agreed to or have paid for travel time billed at the $300 per hour,” Chen added.
Chen said, “Fees for witness statement revision must be closely scrutinized due to potential ethical issues.”
He added, “Defendant has no direct evidence to prove anything illegal or unethical ever occurred because the impenetrable walls of attorney-client privileges or work product theories, and almost all the parties who were privy to what had happened are financially aligned. Defendant has no access to compare the first version of the sworn declarations made before the 85 hours were spent and what were eventually filed under the penalty of perjury. Was there any truth being twisted, scarified, or buried? Defendant was left vulnerable to the potential abuse of excessive witness coaching.”
To be clear, Chen said, “Defendant is not suggesting in any way that there might be anything unethical or illegal [that] occurred during the proceeding of this case. Defendant recognizes that there might be legitimate reasons for counsel to view, review, edit, re-edit the declarations filed by lay witnesses. However, it is particularly disturbing to see time entries like this: ‘7/6/2022, 0.70 Hours Edit J Gary expert report by Drob,’ or ‘7/8/2022, 1.00 Hours Edit Drob Resume and report’ and ‘8/24/2022, 1.50 Hours, Edits to Tony Bird declaration.’ How much of the so-called ‘expert testimony’ was from the mouths of the expert witnesses, and how much was put into their mouths, after hours of editing? After all, they are supposed to be the experts who have superior and specialized knowledge. What does a layperson like the legal counsel have any business in modifying what the experts are testifying? Or did they say something that did not please the editors?”
According to Chen, “In the context of motion for attorney’s fees, defendant urges the court to exercise its sound discretion to scrutinize the time entries provided by plaintiff’s counsel with critical eyes, considering potential ethical issues and the vulnerability of defendant in this aspect.”
The IPI attorney said fees for hours spent on research must be downward adjusted “when plaintiff’s counsels declare themselves as the subject matter expert with a corresponding high rate.”
According to Chen, attorneys are expected to know elementary principles of law, and to discover those additional rules of law that may readily be found by standard research techniques and should not excessively bill for acquiring such knowledge.
Chen said the plaintiff’s counsels “self-promoted themselves as preeminent authorities in the field of employment discrimination, asserting that they have significantly advanced the employment law jurisprudence of the CNMI to an unprecedented level, which justified higher hourly rates; on the other hand, plaintiff’s counsels collectively billed a total of 165 hours, amounting to nearly $40,000.00 for researching legal issues that appear to be rudimentary or basic in nature.”
Chen asked the court to “give due consideration to the alleged experience, expertise and skills of the plaintiff’s counsels and adjust the necessary research time accordingly.”
