- 32 -
that Mr. Sulla adopted and added to petitioner’s frivolous
arguments, thus unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the
proceedings in this case, we shall extend him the benefit of the
doubt until such time as we are sure that he had adopted (and
added to) petitioner’s positions. We believe that we can safely
say that he did so as of September 18, 2000, the date on which he
filed the status report (advising the Court of the 861 argument
and petitioner’s failure to waive or withdraw his initial
arguments). Mr. Lau declares that he spent 41 hours working on
the case after that date. We are familiar with the procedural
and factual history of this case and believe that 41 hours was
reasonably necessary for Mr. Lau to do the work he described.
See United States v. $12,248 U.S. Currency, 957 F.2d 1513, 1520
(9th Cir. 1991). We disagree with Mr. Sulla that some of the 41
hours in question are not excess hours because they are normal to
any litigation. Petitioner’s position is totally without merit,
and this litigation should not have been continued 1 minute after
Mr. Sulla familiarized himself with the facts. We find that $150
is a reasonable hourly charge for Mr. Lau’s time and that he
reasonably expended 41 excess hours on this litigation. The
lodestar amount for Mr. Lau’s time is $6,150.
Respondent asks reimbursement for 21.75 hours of Mr.
Hochman’s time, at a rate of $200 an hour. Mr. Hochman is Mr.
Lau’s supervisor. He is an Associate Area Counsel in the Office
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011