Free Appendix - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00004-SLR

Document 12-7

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT,OFNEW YORK CONTEC CORPORATION, Plaintiff,
VS

i .3t.\.-.' 2.:%r+?- R t5 .. ., ; ,f:? :,:L .. F,F'E~,F.;; : p
c

2.;r .

C : r.+$p --?;I p:~ . .---,[ . J
J

!
>

.,.

L~,~.~W.~~L~,:

2 $ , : : b,-.b % $.r :

,.

, .

>!

1103-CV-910

REMOTE SOLUTION CO., LTD., Defendant.

APPEARANCES: JONES DAY Attorneys for Plaintiff 222 E.ast 41" Street New York, NY I 7-6702 001 McNAMEE LOCMNER TITUS & WILLIAMS, PC Attorneys for Plaintiff 75 State Street Box 459 Albany, NY 12201

OF COUNSEL:

KENNETH L. STEIN, ESQ. RICHARD H. AN, ESQ.

SCOTT A. BARBOUR, ESQ.

NOLAN & HELLER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant 39 North' Pearl Street Albany, NY 12207
DAVID N. HURD United states District Judge

JUSTIN A. HELLER, ESQ.

ORDER
Plaintiff has requested reconsideration of the vacatur of the award of attorney's fees, costs, and disbursements for failure to make a timely application. At oral argument on January 23,2004, by order of the court, the plaintiff was given until January 30,2004, to make an application for reasonable attorney's fees, etc. On February 6,2004, plaintiff filed

Case 1:06-cv-00004-SLR

Document 12-7

Filed 03/01/2006

Page 2 of 2

an application seeking attorney's fees, etc. in excess of $30,000, an amount that is grossly sxcessive. The three attorneys for plaintiff present at oral argument (charging as a group over $1000per hour) were apparently unable to perform the simple task of accurately determining :he correct filing date. There was a conflict between the order of.the court and the ;ubsequent Clerk's minutes and docket entry. Obviously, the order of the court takes ~recedent.The official minutes of January 23,2004, reflect the filing date of January 30, 2004. The same experienced attorneys, in the week following oral argument, apparently Mere also unable to accurately resolve the conflict. Rather they "assumed either that the murt had changed its mind on the deadlines, or that we had misheard the Court's nstructions at the hearing." Stein letter - February 10, 2004. Their assumptions were wrong. Their excuses are rejected. Request for reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

-Dated: February I , I 2004 Utica, New York.