Damages – Fees awarded to party after prevailing on appeal

Where a party prevailed on appeal, it was awarded attorney’s fees. However the fee award was reduced for multiple reasons.

Background

Timothy G. Clemente seeks $180,240 in attorney’s fees and $6,869.23 in costs that he incurred in connection with successfully defending against the appeal filed by Mission Integrated Technologies LLC, or MIT, in the Fourth Circuit. MIT argues only that the hours expended by Tim’s counsel in connection with the appellate proceedings and post-appeal judgment collection efforts were unreasonable and excessive.

Andrews

MIT argues that the court should exclude from its fee calculation all 18.9 hours billed by attorney Elizabeth Andrews, “an experienced appellate specialist at Troutman Pepper who was engaged in a limited capacity to assist in developing strategy for Tim Clemente’s appellate briefing and in preparing for oral argument before the Fourth Circuit.” The court agrees that Andrews’s services were not necessary for Tim’s representation.

From her time entries, it appears that Andrews primarily drafted outlines for oral argument, prepared questions to ask during moot sessions and attended moot sessions. Although large law firms typically employ appellate specialists, those services are a luxury, and a prevailing party cannot reasonably expect to recover those costs from his adversary. Therefore, the court will sustain MIT’s first objection and reduce Tim’s fee request by $14,175.3

DelDuca

MIT’s second objection relates to the 75.2 hours partner Matthew V. DelDuca billed for working on the appellate brief. According to MIT, the $37,600 billed for this work should be deducted from the fee calculation for three reasons.

First, MIT contends that there was “no reason” for DelDuca “to spend nearly two full attorney work weeks on a brief on which an associate and another partner [were] already staffed.” Second, MIT maintains that the appellate brief regurgitated many of the arguments raised in Tim’s motion for summary judgment, meaning that much of the time spent on Tim’s appellate brief was duplicative. Third, MIT argues that two of DelDuca’s time entries demonstrate that his records are unreliable.

Although a $37,600 discount is unsupported, the court finds that a 20 percent reduction ($7,520) as to the fees charged in connection with DelDuca’s work on the appellate brief is warranted because Tim’s counsels’ time sheets reveal that other attorneys also worked on the appellate brief, demonstrating that Tim’s attorneys duplicated work.

Vague

MIT argues that the court should exclude from any fee award all of the time entries recorded by Henson and Houston containing the description “Revise appellee’s brief” or “Draft appellee’s brief,” which totals $36,430 for 76.8 hours of work. According to MIT, these time entries are excessively vague and prohibit the court from determining whether the time spent by Henson and Houston was reasonable and necessary.

MIT’s request for a 100 percent reduction is not supported by the caselaw. Rather, the court finds that a 25 percent reduction as to the 76.8 hours billed by Henson and Houston is appropriate because descriptions such as “drafting” and “revising” briefs “preclude[] the court, as well as opposing counsel, from making a fair evaluation of the time expended and the nature and need for the service.”

Argument

MIT argues that the $54,781 billed for 89.1 hours spent preparing for and attending oral argument before the Fourth Circuit is “unreasonably duplicative.” The court finds that a 20 percent reduction ($10,956.20) as to the fees requested in connection with oral argument preparation is appropriate due to the overlap of the issues raised on appeal with those addressed in the summary judgment proceedings

Mediation

MIT seeks a $7,425 reduction, arguing that Houston’s and DelDuca’s work in preparing and filing a mediation statement was highly duplicative. The court disagrees.

Collection

MIT’s final objection relates to the 4.2 hours billed in November 2025 by Houston in connection with post-appeal judgment collection efforts. A prevailing party may not recover fees incurred as a result of his counsel failing to meet and confer. For these reasons, the court will sustain MIT’s final objection and reduce Tim’s fee request by an additional $1,890.

Defendant’s motion for fees granted in part, denied in part.

Misson Integrated Technologies, LLC v. Clemente, Case No. 1:23-cv-1608, May 28, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Brinkema). VLW 026-3-236. 12 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-3-236