- 60 -
that regard, we have assigned 10.5 hours to generic client
communications and 1.5 hours to Minns communications. We
therefore reduce the $140 time by an additional 6 hours (10.5 +
1.5 = 12; 50% of 12 = 6). Finally, we have assigned 0.75 hours
to Irvine’s review of contracts and further reduce the $140 time
by that amount. The end result is a 19.75-hour reduction in the
$140 time (13 + 6 + .75 = 19.75), leaving 92.4 hours of $140
time. The resulting amount is $13,322.25, determined as follows:
[(92.4 X $140) + (3.25 X $105) + (0.5 X $90)] = ($12,936 +
$341.25 + $45) = $13,322.25.
b. 2002 to 2005
Taking into account the $150 statutory rate cap in effect
during the years 2002 through 2005, the PH petitioners claim
1,683.85 hours at $150 per hour, 1 hour at $140 per hour, 0.7
hours at $130 per hour, 1.4 hours at $120 per hour, 2 hours at
$105 per hour, 1 hour at $100 per hour, and 15.5 hours at $90 per
hour. We adjust the $150 time to reflect the following
reductions: (1) Remainder of the 130-hour overstaffing reduction-
-117 hours; (2) Irvine’s time deemed attributable to the Minns
dispute--7.8 hours;51 (3) excessive time pertaining to the bill of
costs--28 hours; (4) work attributable to the remand proceedings-
51 We have assigned 15.6 hours of Irvine’s 2002 time to
generic client communications (10.9 hours) and Minns
communications (4.7 hours). As we deem 50 percent of that time
to be attributable to the Minns dispute, the resulting reduction
is 7.8 hours (50% of 15.6 = 7.8).
Page: Previous 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011