Farwest Pump Company

Dated: February 26, 2020 I □□ ; Benn Perf — 3 Brenda Moody Whinery, Chief Bankruptcy [6] 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 8 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 9 In re: Chapter 11 10 FARWEST PUMP COMPANY, Case No. 4:17-bk-11112-BMW Debtor. RULING AND ORDER REGARDING THIRD FEE APPLICATION FOR 13 TALWAR LAW, PLLC FOR ALLOWANCE OF COMPENSATION 14 AND REIMBURSEMENT OF □□□□□□□ 15 AS SPECIAL COUNSEL [16] 17 This matter came before the Court pursuant to the Third Fee Application for Talwar Law 18 || PLLC for Allowance of Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses as Special Counsel (th 19] “Fee Application”) (Dkt. 623) filed by Talwar Law, PLLC (‘Talwar’) on October 23, 2019; th Committee’s Objection to Third Fee Application for Talwar Law, PLLC (the “Committee’ 21] Objection”) (Dkt. 651) filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (th “Committee”) on November 13, 2019; the Dunlap Joinder in Committee’s Fee Objections (th “Joinder”) (Dkt. 656) filed by Creditors Doug and Christina Dunlap and High Desert Irrigatio1 24] (collectively, the “Dunlaps”) on November 19, 2019; and the Supplement to Third Fe. 25|| Application for Talwar Law, PLLC for Allowance of Compensation and Reimbursement o 26 || Expenses as Special Counsel and Response to Objections (the “First Supplement & □□□□□□□□□ (Dkt. 661) filed by Talwar on November 21, 2019. 28 On December 12, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Fee Application (the “Decembe 1 12 Hearing”), at which time the Court invited Talwar to supplement the Fee Application to 2 comply with the United States Trustee’s guidelines for time entry billing and gave other parties 3 the opportunity to respond thereto. (12/12/2019 Hearing Tr. 42:14-43:15). The parties agreed that 4 after these supplemental pleadings were filed, they would submit this matter to the Court for a 5 decision without further evidence. (12/12/2019 Hearing Tr. 43:16-20). 6 On January 6, 2020, Talwar filed a Second Supplement to Third Fee Application for 7 Talwar Law, PLLC for Allowance of Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses as Special 8 Counsel and Response to Objections (the “Second Supplement”) (Dkt. 688); on January 14, 2020, 9 the Dunlaps filed the Dunlap Objection to Talwar 2nd Amended 3rd Fee Application (the “Dunlap 10 Objection”) (Dkt. 690); and on January 15, 2020, the Committee filed the Committee’s Joinder 11 in Dunlap’s Objections to Talwar’s Second Amended Third Fee Application (Dkt. 691), at which 12 time the Court took this matter under advisement. 13 Based upon the pleadings, arguments of counsel, and the entire record before the Court, 14 the Court now issues its ruling. 15 I. Jurisdiction 16 The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 (b) and 157(b). 17 This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(A). 18 II. Facts and Procedural Background 19 Pre-petition, on February 24, 2017, Farwest Pump Company (the “Debtor” and/or 20 “Farwest”) retained Talwar to represent it in certain state court litigation under a salary 21 arrangement (the “Salary Arrangement”). 22 On September 20, 2017 (the “Petition Date”), Farwest filed for relief under chapter 11 of 23 the Bankruptcy Code. After filing its bankruptcy petition, the Debtor continued to use and pay 24 Talwar under the Salary Arrangement. 25 On May 23, 2018, the Court ruled that the Debtor’s retention of Talwar was not proper 26 under § 327(b)1 of the Bankruptcy Code, but the Court allowed Talwar to seek employment nunc [27] 28 1 Unless otherwise indicated, statutory references are to the Bankruptcy Code, title 11 of the United 1 pro tunc and file a fee application, if appropriate. 2 On June 19, 2018, the Debtor filed an Application to Approve Continued Retention of 3 Talwar Nunc Pro Tunc (the “Employment Application”) (Dkt. 225), in which it asked the Court 4 to approve the continued retention of Talwar nunc pro tunc to do the following: [5] • Represent [the] Debtor in Farwest Pump Company v. Joel Rodriguez et. 6 al., pending before the Arizona Superior Court in and for Pima County under case number C20150425. [7] 8 • Represent the Debtor in the adversary proceeding in Farwest Pump Company v. Darlene Krueger in Darlene Krueger’s bankruptcy case under 9 Adv. No. 4:17-ap-00659-SGH (sic). [10] • Represent the Debtor in Farwest Pump Company v. Illinois National 11 Insurance Co., et al. – United States District Court for the District of Arizona Case No. C20174197. [12] 13 • Represent [the Debtor] in monetizing Crime Insurance Claims with Secura arising from losses incurred as a result of the theft and embezzlement by [14] Joel Rodriguez. [15] • Represent [the Debtor] with respect to collecting the restitution award owed 16 to it by Joel Rodriguez, including foreclosing on the restitution lien securing the restitution repayment. [17] 18 (collectively, the “Retained Tasks”) (Dkt. 225 at 2). 19 Although Talwar had received a salary from the Debtor for the period of time between the 20 Petition Date and March 31, 2018, in the Employment Application the Debtor proposed the 21 following compensation structure going forward: “except for his work on Farwest Pump 22 Company v. Illinois National Insurance Co., et al. – United States District Court for the District 23 of Arizona Case No. C20174197, Talwar will be compensated, subject to Court approval under 24 §§ 330 and 331, on an hourly basis at a rate of $240 per hour and reimbursed out of pocket cost.” 25 (Dkt. 225 at 3). 26 By order dated August 10, 2018, the Court approved the Employment Application. (Dkt. 27 278). 28 Thus far, the Court has approved fees to Talwar, on an interim basis, in the amount of 1 $154,385.00 (Dkts. 385 & 641). 2 In the Fee Application, Talwar asks the Court to approve additional fees in the amount of 3 $35,808.00 for 149.2 hours for services provided between July 26, 2018 and October 22, 2019, 4 in connection with the Retained Tasks and in assisting the Debtor’s bankruptcy counsel, plus 5 costs in the amount of $434.09. 6 The Committee objected to the Fee Application on the basis that: (1) Talwar’s hourly rate 7 was not approved by the Court; (2) the fees sought are not reasonable; (3) Talwar has not 8 complied with the U.S. Trustee’s billing guidelines; and (4) some of the services that Talwar 9 rendered were on behalf of the Debtor’s principals. The Dunlaps joined in the Committee’s 10 Objection. 11 In the First Supplement & Response, Talwar maintains that its hourly rate was approved 12 by the Court, its fees are reasonable, and the work for which it is seeking to be paid was work 13 done on behalf of the Debtor. 14 At the December 12 Hearing, the Court noted that it had approved Talwar’s continued 15 retention and compensation subject to Court approval on an hourly basis at a rate of $240 per 16 hour, found Talwar’s hourly rate to be reasonable, and effectively overruled the Committee’s 17 objection that Talwar’s hourly rate had not been approved by the Court. (12/12/2019 Hearing Tr. 18 38:13-39:1). However, the Court told Talwar that its billing entries did not comply with the U.S. 19 Trustee’s guidelines and instructed it to further supplement the Fee Application. (12/12/2019 20 Hearing Tr. 41:7-43:4). 21 On January 6, 2020, Talwar filed the Second Supplement, with detailed time entries 22 attached. In the Second Supplement, Talwar asserts that in compiling the detailed time entries, it 23 discovered that it had previously omitted certain time entries. Talwar is now asking the Court to 24 approve fees for services rendered from June 4, 2018 through October 22, 2019, in the amount 25 of $38,616.00, an overall increase of $2,808.00. [26] 27 2 The Ruling and Order (Dkt. 385) entered on November 15, 2018, allowed Talwar fees nunc pro tunc, in the amount of $29,385.00, for the period from the Petition Date through March 31, 2018. The Order [28] (Dkt. 641) entered on November 5, 2019, allowed Talwar Law fees, as a contingent fee related to the 1 In the Second Supplement, Talwar maintains that it appropriately reduced travel fees to 2 one-way travel, is only seeking to be reimbursed for necessary work, and is entitled to the 3 requested fees. 4 On January 14, 2020, the Dunlaps filed the Dunlap Objection, in which they ask the Court 5 to deny or significantly discount Talwar’s requested fees on the basis that the fees are 6 unreasonable because, among other things: (1) Talwar is seeking to recover fees for providing 7 services related to the bankruptcy, which services Talwar has not been approved to provide; 8 (2) Talwar is seeking unreasonable fees for time spent pursuing its fee requests; (3) Talwar has 9 failed to establish benefit to the estate; (4) Talwar is seeking duplicative compensation for 10 services rendered by co-counsel; (5) Talwar also represents the Debtor’s principals in their 11 individual capacities; and (6) the Second Supplement contains inaccurate statements. The 12 Committee joined in the Dunlap Objection. 13 III. Legal Analysis 14 Pursuant to § 330(a): 15 (1) After notice . . . the court may award to . . . a professional person employed under section 327 . . . — [16] (A) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services 17 rendered by the . . . professional person, or attorney and by any paraprofessional person employed by any such person; [18] and 19 (B) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses. (2) The court may, on its own motion or on the motion of . . . any other 20 party in interest, award compensation that is less than the amount of compensation that is requested. [21] 22 In determining the amount of reasonable compensation to award to a professional person, 23 courts must “consider the nature, the extent, and the value of [the services rendered], taking into 24 account all relevant factors.” 11 U.S.C. § 330 (a)(3). Courts generally consider: (1) whether the 25 services for which the professional is seeking payment were authorized; (2) whether the services 26 were necessary or beneficial to the administration of the estate at the time such services were 27 rendered; (3) whether the services are adequately documented; and (4) whether the fees requested 28 are reasonable taking into account the factors set forth in § 330(a)(3), which factors include: 1 (A) the time spent on [the] services; 2 (B) the rates charged for [the] services; (C) whether the services were necessary to the administration of, or 3 beneficial at the time at which the service was rendered toward 4 the completion of, a case under this title; (D) whether the services were performed within a reasonable amount 5 of time commensurate with the complexity, importance, and nature of the problem, issue, or task addressed; [6] (E) with respect to a professional person, whether the person is board 7 certified or otherwise has demonstrated skill and expertise in the bankruptcy field; and 8 (F) whether the compensation is reasonable based on the customary 9 compensation charged by comparably skilled practitioners in cases other than cases under this title. [10] 11 In re Mednet, 251 B.R. 103, 108 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000); 11 U.S.C. § 330 (a)(3). 12 The party seeking fees has the burden of establishing that it is entitled to such fees. In re 13 Roderick Timber Co., 185 B.R. 601, 606 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995). “[A]ttorneys applying to a court 14 for attorneys’ fees should exercise good billing judgment by making ‘a good faith effort to 15 exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary . . . .’” 16 In re Thomas, No. BAP.CC-08-1307-HMOPA, 2009 WL 7751299 , at *4 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. July 6, 17 2009), aff’d, 474 F. App’x 500 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 , [18] 103 S. Ct. 1933 , 1939–40, 76 L. Ed. 2d 40 (1983)). Further, attorneys are not entitled to fees 19 incurred in the course of defending their fee applications. Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, [20] 135 S. Ct. 2158, 2169 , 192 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2015). 21 In this case, Talwar has supplemented the Fee Application with detailed billing statements, 22 which largely reflect that Talwar is seeking compensation for work done on various of the 23 Retained Tasks. Although the Dunlaps and Committee argue that this work did not benefit the 24 estate, Talwar’s employment to work on the Retained Tasks was approved by the Court, the 25 underlying outside litigation in which Talwar is involved on behalf of the estate is ongoing, and 26 there is no concrete controverting evidence before the Court that demonstrates that the services 27 Talwar rendered in the context of the Retained Tasks were not reasonably likely to benefit the 28 estate. 1 That being said, in some instances Talwar billed for services outside the scope of the 2 Retained Tasks, and in other instances impermissibly billed for work done to pursue and/or 3 defend its prior fee applications. Further, Talwar is now seeking fees in an amount greater than 4 those sought in the Application. 5 Talwar asserts that these previously omitted fees were brought to its attention when it 6 brought its original billing statements into compliance with the U.S. Trustee’s guidelines after 7 the December 12 Hearing, which action was taken in defense of its Fee Application. Given that 8 the failure of a professional to maintain contemporaneous time records affects the reliability of 9 those records, In re Thomas, 2009 WL 7751299 , at *6, and given that work done in defense of a 10 fee application is not compensable, the Court will limit Talwar to its original fee request. 11 Based upon the foregoing, the Court will reduce Talwar’s fees as requested in the Second 12 Supplement by the following amounts: [13] Billing Entry3 Court’s Reduction 14 Date(s) Time Task(s) Reduction Basis for Reduction Billed 15 6/4/2018 – 3.2 hours All tasks billed for this period 3.2 hours Requested for first 7/24/2018 ($768.00) ($768.00) time in supplement [16] 7/26/2018 0.3 hours Travel time 0.3 hours Requested for first 17 ($72.00) ($72.00) time in supplement 8/2/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: Review 0.1 hours Requested for first [18] ($24.00) email from Clark Vaught . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 19 8/2/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: Review 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) email from Channa Vaught . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 20 8/3/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: Review 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) emails from Doug Glasson . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement [21] 8/10/2018 0.2 hours Outside Litigation / Bankruptcy: 0.2 hours Outside the scope of 22 ($48.00) review of email . . . . ($48.00) the Retained Tasks 23 8/15/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation / 0.2 hours Requested for first ($48.00) Bankruptcy: Review email from ($48.00) time in supplement 24 John Smith . . . . 8/15/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation / 0.2 hours Requested for first [25] ($48.00) Bankruptcy: email to Doug ($48.00) time in supplement Glasson . . . . [26] 8/16/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: emails with 0.1 hours Requested for first 27 ($24.00) Roger Frazier . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement [28] 1 Billed 2 8/16/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Criminal Restitution: 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) emails with Channa Vaught . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement [3] 8/17/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation / 0.1 hours Requested for first 4 ($24.00) Bankruptcy: review email . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 8/20/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review of 0.1 hours Requested for first 5 ($24.00) Dunlap 26th supplemental ($24.00) time in supplement 6 disclosure . . . . 8/21/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: emails with 0.1 hours Requested for first 7 ($24.00) Doug Glasson . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 8 8/21/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) email from Andrew Petersen . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 9 8/21/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) email from Russell Stowers . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement [10] 8/21/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: email to 0.1 hours Requested for first 11 ($24.00) Doug Glasson . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 8/24/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: several 0.1 hours Requested for first [12] ($24.00) emails . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 13 8/27/2018 0.2 hours Application for Fees: Submit 0.2 hours Requested for first ($48.00) updated billings . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement [14] 8/27/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.1 hours Requested for first 15 ($24.00) email from Andrew Petersen . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 8/29/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: Phone call 0.2 hours Requested for first [16] ($48.00) with Channa Vaught . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement 17 8/29/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: several 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) emails . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement [18] 8/30/2018 0.5 hours All tasks billed for this period 0.5 hours Requested for first 19 – 9/9/2018 ($120.00) ($120.00) time in supplement 9/11/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.1 hours Requested for first [20] ($24.00) email from Andrew Petersen . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 21 9/13/2018 0.3 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.3 hours Requested for first ($72.00) letter from Russell Stowers . . . . ($72.00) time in supplement [22] 9/13/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: emails . . . . 0.2 hours Requested for first ($48.00) ($48.00) time in supplement [23] 9/14/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review of 0.2 hours Requested for first 24 ($48.00) Dunlap’s 27th supplemental ($48.00) time in supplement disclosure . . . . [25] 9/18/2018 0.4 hours Bankruptcy: Review bankruptcy 0.4 hours Outside the scope of 26 ($96.00) docket . . . . ($96.00) the Retained Tasks and/or tasks done in 27 defense of prior fee application [28] 1 Billed 2 9/21/2018 0.5 hours Bankruptcy: Compile . . . . 0.5 hours Requested for first ($120.00) ($120.00) time in supplement; [3] outside the scope of the Retained Tasks; [4] and/or tasks done in 5 defense of prior fee application [6] 9/24/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: emails . . . . 0.2 hours Requested for first 7 ($48.00) ($48.00) time in supplement 9/27/2018 0.3 hours Bankruptcy: Review bankruptcy 0.3 hours Outside the scope of [8] ($72.00) docket . . . . ($72.00) the Retained Tasks 9 and/or tasks done in defense of prior fee 10 application 9/28/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review of 0.1 hours Requested for first [11] ($24.00) letter . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 12 10/1/2018 0.2 hours Bankruptcy: Review bankruptcy 0.2 hours Outside the scope of ($48.00) docket . . . . ($48.00) the Retained Tasks 13 and/or tasks done in defense of prior fee [14] application 15 10/8/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: Review of 0.1 hours Requested for first ($48.00) emails . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement [16] 10/9/2018 0.1 hours Bankruptcy: email to Kasey Nye 0.1 hours Requested for first 17 ($24.00) . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 10/15/2018 0.4 hours Bankruptcy: review of objection 0.4 hours Outside the scope of 18 ($96.00) . . . . ($96.00) the Retained Tasks and/or done in [19] defense of prior fee 20 application 21 10/15/2018 0.5 hours Bankruptcy: Draft email . . . . 0.5 hours Requested for first ($120.00) ($120.00) time in supplement; 22 outside the scope of the Retained Tasks; 23 and/or done in defense of prior fee [24] application [25] 10/15/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: finalize and 0.2 hours Requested for first 26 ($48.00) send . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement 27 10/15/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: finalize and 0.2 hours Requested for first ($48.00) send . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement [28] 1 Billed 2 10/16/2018 0.5 hours Rodriguez Litigation / 0.2 hours Outside the scope of ($120.00) Bankruptcy: emails with Andrew ($48.00) the Retained Tasks [3] Petersen . . . emails also discussed and/or done in objection to fee application in defense of prior fee [4] bankruptcy court . . . . application 5 10/18/2018 2.5 hours Bankruptcy: Assist Kasey in 2.5 hours Outside the scope of ($600.00) drafting objection . . . . ($600.00) the Retained Tasks [6] and/or lack of benefit 7 to the estate 10/18/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review of 0.1 hours Requested for first 8 ($24.00) letter . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 9 10/18/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: draft and 0.2 hours Requested for first ($48.00) send email . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement 10 10/18/2018 0.3 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review of 0.3 hours Requested for first ($72.00) response . . . . ($72.00) time in supplement [11] 10/19/2018 0.8 hours All tasks billed on this date 0.8 hours Requested for first 12 ($192.00) ($192.00) time in supplement 10/22/2018 0.1 hours Bankruptcy: review and calendar 0.1 hours Outside the scope of [13] ($24.00) . . . . ($24.00) the Retained Tasks 14 and/or done in defense of prior fee 15 application 10/23/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: email to 0.1 hours Requested for first [16] ($24.00) Russell Stowers . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 17 10/25/2018 0.1 hours Secura Claims: email to Willcox 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) police . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 18 10/26/2018 0.1 hours Secura Claims: review email . . . . 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) ($24.00) time in supplement [19] 10/30/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Restitution: Review 0.1 hours Requested for first 20 ($24.00) emails . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 10/31/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: reminder 0.2 hours Requested for first [21] ($48.00) email . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement 22 10/31/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation and 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) Rodriguez Restitution: emails ($24.00) time in supplement 23 with Tom Bayham . . . . 24 10/31/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: emails with 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) Kasey Nye ($24.00) time in supplement 25 11/2/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review of 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) email . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement [26] 11/5/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.1 hours Requested for first 27 ($24.00) ruling . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 11/6/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.1 hours Requested for first [28] ($24.00) Dunlaps’ motion . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 1 Billed 2 11/7/2018 4.7 hours Bankruptcy: Attend hearing in 1.8 hours Outside the scope of ($1,128.00) bankruptcy court as it related ($432.00) the Retained Tasks [3] directly to my attorney fee and/or done in applications and Dunlap matters defense of prior fee [4] (1.4 hours); travel time to court application 5 house (0.4); . . . . 11/8/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation / 0.2 hours Requested for first [6] ($48.00) Bankruptcy: review of letter . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement 7 11/8/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: email to 0.2 hours Requested for first ($48.00) Russell Stowers . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement [8] 11/15/2018 0.1 hours Bankruptcy: review Bankruptcy 0.1 hours Requested for first 9 ($24.00) Court ruling . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement; outside the scope of 10 the Retained Tasks; and/or done in 11 defense of prior fee application [12] 11/16/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation / 0.2 hours Requested for first 13 ($48.00) bankruptcy: Phone call with ($48.00) time in supplement Kasey Nye . . . . [14] 11/20/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.2 hours Requested for first 15 ($48.00) email from Russell Stowers . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement 11/26/2018 1.5 hours Start draft response security 1.5 hours Outside the scope of 16 ($360.00) measures ($360.00) Retained Tasks 17 11/27/2018 1.4 hours Research cases in mtn for security 1.4 hours Outside the scope of ($336.00) measures; continue drafting ($336.00) Retained Tasks 18 response; draft declarations 11/29/2018 0.3 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.3 hours Requested for first [19] ($72.00) order . . . . ($72.00) time in supplement 20 11/30/2018 0.2 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.2 hours Requested for first ($48.00) Russell Stowers’ request . . . . ($48.00) time in supplement [21] 11/30/2018 0.7 hours Continue work on response mtn 0.7 hours Outside the scope of 22 ($168.00) for security measures ($168.00) Retained Tasks 12/3/2018 0.4 hours Finalize response mtn security 0.4 hours Outside the scope of [23] ($96.00) measures, file and send out ($96.00) Retained Tasks 24 12/6/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) denial . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 25 12/7/2018 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review and 0.1 hours Requested for first ($24.00) respond . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement [26] 1/11/2019 2.6 hours Rodriguez Litigation / 0.3 hours Outside the scope of 27 ($624.00) Bankruptcy: . . . review ($72.00) the Retained Tasks bankruptcy docket for similar and/or done in 28 ruling (0.3) . . . . defense of prior fee 1 Billed 2 2/11/2019 0.9 hours Rodriguez Litigation: travel . . . . 0.9 hours Requested for first ($216.00) ($216.00) time in supplement [3] 3/4/2019 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: review of 0.1 hours Requested for first 4 ($24.00) email . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 5/3/2019 0.1 hours Rodriguez Litigation: emails with 0.1 hours Requested for first 5 ($24.00) John Smith . . . . ($24.00) time in supplement 8/23/2019 0.3 hours All tasks billed for this period 0.3 hours Requested for first 6 – ($72.00) ($72.00) time in supplement 8/26/2019 [7] 9/11/2019 0.3 hours Krueger Adversary Proceeding: 0.3 hours Requested for first 8 ($72.00) Email to CR Hyde . . . . ($72.00) time in supplement 9/15/2019 1.2 hours All tasks billed for this period 1.2 hours Requested for first 9 – ($288.00) ($288.00) time in supplement 9/19/2019 [10] 10/17/2019 1.0 hours Bankruptcy: Review order 0.5 hours Reasonableness 11 ($240.00) confirming Creditor’s plan . . . . ($120.00) Total Deduction: $6,432.00 [12] 13 The Court also notes that it has confirmed the Committee’s plan of liquidation, which plan 14 vests all property of the estate, including litigation claims, in a liquidating plan trustee. (See Dkts. 15 175 at IX & 615). Although the Court’s confirmation order is on appeal, the Court cautions 16 Talwar that given the circumstances it will subject any request for fees incurred while the appeal 17 remains pending to an elevated level of scrutiny. 18 IV. Conclusion 19 Based on the foregoing it is the determination of this Court that the fees sought in the Fee 20 Application, as increased in the Second Supplement, must be reduced by $6,432.00. Fees are 21 therefore awarded, on an interim basis, in the amount of $32,184.00, together with costs in the 22 sum of $434.09. Given that this award is an interim award, the award of such fees may be 23 reconsidered by the Court, and the objections of all parties are preserved pending a determination 24 of fees pursuant to a final fee application to be submitted by Talwar. 25 Wherefore, upon consideration of the entire record and for good cause shown; 26 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Fee Application, as supplemented, is approved on 27 an interim basis as a Chapter 11 administrative expense in this case, in the reduced amount of 28 $32,184.00 together with costs in the amount of $434.09. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Debtor is authorized to pay the approved amount 2 to Talwar, to the extent that such payment does not prejudice other administrative claims of equal 3 or higher priority. 4 DATED AND SIGNED ABOVE.