Summary
finding 150 hours claimed to defend an appeal excessive
Summary of this case from Williams v. Consolidated City of JacksonvilleOpinion
No. 07-10815 Non-Argument Calendar.
July 18, 2007.
Edward H. Trent, Richard Neal Margulies, Akerman, Senterfitt Eidson, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
William B. Pringle, III, P.A., Orlando, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 03-01170-CV-ORL-22DAB.
Before TJOFLAT, BIRCH and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
The questions involved in this appeal are well set out in the Reports and Recommendations of the magistrate judge and the district court's dispositive order of January 23, 2007, 2007 WL 191308. They are whether appellant failed to meet its burden of apportioning the fees attributable to its defense of appellee's civil theft claim — as distinguished from appellee's claims for negligence and conversion — and whether the district court erred in determining that the compensable time appellant spent in defense of the civil theft claim was excessive.
Having considered the parties' arguments, we agree with the district court, for the reasons stated in its dispositive order, that appellant failed to satisfy its apportionment burden. As for the attorney's fees, we find no error in the court's determination of the hourly rate.