Case: 20-20563 Document: 00516152847 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 4, 2022
No. 20-20563 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Jinsun, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Alidad Mireskandari,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC 4:13-CV-1238
Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Dennis and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jinsun, L.L.C. filed a motion to recover attorney’s fees incurred as a
result of Alidad Mireskandari’s post-trial discovery abuses. The district
court awarded $73,824.91. We AFFIRM.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-20563 Document: 00516152847 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
No. 20-20563
Following Mireskandari’s deceptive post-trial conduct, Jinsun sought
sanctions and requested recovery of certain attorney’s fees with the presiding
magistrate judge. Jinsun originally sought $252,711.39 in fees, but
Mireskandari objected on various grounds, and the magistrate judge settled
on a $73,824.91 award, less than thirty percent of the amount prayed for. The
district judge affirmed the magistrate’s award, concluding that the
magistrate’s order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Mireskandari appealed, seeking a further reduction of the amount awarded.
Federal courts have the inherent authority to sanction conduct
abusive of the judicial process, including ordering one party to pay the
opposing party’s attorney’s fees. 1 We review the district court’s award of
attorney’s fees for an abuse of discretion, and we review those findings of fact
supporting the award for clear error. 2 “The essential goal in shifting
fees . . . is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection. So trial
courts may take into account their overall sense of a suit, and may use
estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney’s time.” 3 This court
“must give substantial deference” to the trial court’s determination. 4
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it affirmed the
magistrate’s award of attorney’s fees. The record reveals that the magistrate
judge carefully reviewed Jinsun’s request for fees and accompanying
documentation before ultimately concluding that certain hours billed by
Jinsun’s counsel were reasonable. Mireskandari filed objections to Jinsun’s
request, some of which were sustained, and others of which were not. For
1
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991).
2
Bear Ranch, L.L.C. v. Heartbrand Beef, Inc., 885 F.3d 794, 803 (5th Cir. 2018).
3
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011).
4
Id.
2
Case: 20-20563 Document: 00516152847 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/04/2022
No. 20-20563
example, the magistrate judge agreed that Jinsun could not recover fees
incurred from an ancillary New Jersey proceeding, but disagreed that
Jinsun’s request was unreasonable because of impermissible block billing,
improper billing increments, or lack of adequate documentation. The
magistrate explained its reasoning, applied the correct legal standard, and
concluded that $73,824.91 was a reasonable award. Mireskandari has failed
to overcome the deference we accord the district court, citing to no authority
suggesting that the district court abused its discretion.
* * *
We AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.
3