Free Motion for Attorney Fees - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 136

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 04-CV-1124-JLK-MEH LINDA FORGACS, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. EYE CARE CENTER OF NORTHERN COLORADO, P.C. et al., Defendants. ______________________________________________________ Declaration of Craig Cornish

I, Craig Cornish, being duly sworn, state the following: 1. I am an attorney licensed in Colorado. For the past 25 years,

my practice has focused on all aspects employment law, mostly litigation in federal and state courts. During the past 10 years I have represented both employees and employers. 2. 1. 3. I am familiar with the hourly fees partner-level attorneys charge A copy of my resume is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit C-

in employment litigation in this federal district. Likewise associate attorneys and paralegals. 4. 5. I am familiar with the qualifications of John Paddock. I have no reservation in attesting that his fees of $275/hour is

within the norm for attorneys who practice employment law in this District Case No. 04-cv-1124 Exhibit C

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 136

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 2 of 4

with comparable skills and reputation, and is therefore reasonable. I also agree that the time billed by his partners, associates, and paralegals is reasonable. 6. I was asked by Mr. Paddock to evaluate the reasonableness of

the time he and his colleagues spent defending the Third and Seventh Claims for Relief. 7. In reaching my opinion below, I reviewed the Complaint, the

motion for sanctions, Plaintiff's response opposing sanctions, the reply, Magistrate Judge Hegarty's Recommendation, this Court's Order of February 20, 2007 regarding sanctions, the monthly invoices for Defendants' attorneys, the Defendant' Statement of Attorney Fees in Response to the Court's February 20, 2007 Order, and I discussed the case with Mr. Paddock. 8. Frankly, I disagree with Mr. Paddock's formula for calculating

reasonable attorneys' fees for the pending motion. I do not believe that dividing the number of claims asserted by the claims, for which fees have been awarded, is reasonable. It is artificial, and fails to account for the reality that different claims may require more or less time than such a simplistic mathematical formula yields. 9. That said, I am of the opinion that 10% for the Third Claim for

Relief, and 10% for the Seventh Claim for Relief is reasonable. The basis for my opinion is as follows:

Case No. 04-cv-1124 Exhibit C

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 136

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 3 of 4

a.

Mr. Paddock informed me that his time sheets do not

discriminate that finely on their face. That is understandable and reasonable. b. I asked him to give me his estimate of the proportion of

time he spent on each of those two claims, from the commencement of the Complaint, in relation to the case as a whole. And more specifically, the amount of time he estimates he spent on those claims that would not have been spent had they not been brought in the first place. c. He told me that he carefully reviewed his time sheets to

arrive at such an estimate. He is obviously knowledgeable of the efforts he put into various tasks on behalf of his client, including work that overlapped with the Third and Seventh claims and those which are clearly allocable to those two claims. d. his estimates. e. He told me that he thought he spent approximately 10% of I have no reason to question the honesty or good faith of

his time on the Third Claim and 10% on the Seventh Claim in relation to the whole time he spent on the case. f. We discussed in some detail exactly what he had to do to

defend the Third and Seventh Claims. 10. I am satisfied that 20% is a fair estimate of the firm's overall

time devoted to the Third and Seventh Claims.

Case No. 04-cv-1124 Exhibit C

Case 1:04-cv-01124-JLK-MEH

Document 136

Filed 03/06/2007

Page 4 of 4

11.

My opinion takes into consideration the relevant factors in

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), and its progeny, and Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974).

Executed this 6th day of March, 2007. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. s/Craig Cornish Craig Cornish, #10445

Case No. 04-cv-1124 Exhibit C