MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON “[ALLEN-MAIN ASSOCIATES, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP’S] MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT AGAINST PETITIONING CREDITOR FOR COSTS AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY’S FEES”
I.
The matter before the court is the motion of Allen-Main Associates, Limited Partnership (“Allen-Main”) for a judgment for costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 303CÍX1), 1 based on this court’s March 2, 1998 dismissal (“the dismissal order”), after notice and a hearing, оf an involuntary Chapter 7 petition brought against Allen-Main by C.C. Britain Equities, L.L.C. (“C.C. Britain”). Allen-Main seeks $15,192.63 as a reasonable attorney’s fee and $1,166.46 for сosts.
After an April 8, 1998 hearing on Alien-Main’s motion, the parties submitted post-hearing briefs, C.C. Britain contends that the court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the motion because C.C. Britain has appealed the dismissal order. In the alternative, C.C. Britain argues that Allen-Main has not sufficiently estаblished a basis for the attorney’s fee it requests.
*608 II.
C.C. Britain first argues that its timely appeal is “a jurisdictional event which divests the ... court of jurisdiction to hear and determine any and all matters related to the subject matter of that appeal.” C.C. Britain’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law at 10. C.C. Britain cites numerous authоrities in support of this proposition. 2 The court finds that these cases do not support C.C. Britain’s claim that its appeal of the dismissal order denies this court jurisdiction to consider Alien-Main’s motion.
Six of the cited cases hold that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdictiоn to modify or interfere with an order that has been appealed or to decide an issue that is identical to one apрealed. In contrast, four of the cited cases hold that the bankruptcy court possessed jurisdiction over an issue related tо the one on appeal when the challenged action implemented or enforced the appealed ordеr or judgment or involved issues different from those before the appellate court.
See Dicola v. Am. Steamship Owners Mut. Protectiоn and Indem. Assoc. (In re Prudential Lines, Inc.),
[1] In considering Alien-Main’s motion for costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee, this court is not interfеring with the order on appeal but is implementing
*609
the dismissal order. The issue involved in the appeal of the dismissal order is completеly different from the request for a reasonable attorney’s fee and costs. C.C. Britain has chosen not to move, under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 8007, for a stаy of the dismissal order. The dismissal order, accordingly, is in full force and effect and permits Allen-Main to assert its rights under § 303(i)(l).
See N.L.R.B. v. Cincinnati Bronze, Inc.,
The court concludes that it has jurisdiction to consider Alien-Main’s motion and to enter a judgment for costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee.
III.
Howard L. Siegel, Esq. (“Siegel”), Alien-Main’s attorney, was the sole witness at the hearing. He testified that he is a senior partner of the 130-member law firm of Brown, Rudnick, Freed & Gesmer (“Brown Rudnick”), and that the fees and costs sought had been billed to Allen-Main, but not yet paid. Exhibit A attached to Alien-Main’s motiоn for judgment itemizes 71.1 hours of services that Siegel averred were spent in connection with defending the involuntary petition. Exhibit A, in addition to itemizing Siegel’s time, also discloses time spent by G.B. Cosini (“Cosini”), a second-year associate at the law firm. Siegel testified that for this client Brоwn Rudnick billed his time at $288.75 per hour and Cosini’s time at an hourly rate of $122.50. Of the total hours, Exhibit A attributes 30.5 hours to Cosini and 40.6 hours to Siegel. 3 Brief writing and brief review accounted for at least 40 hours. This figure is an estimate because Exhibit A combined several activities without specifying how much time was spent on each activity.
Siegel acknowledged that Alien-Main’s principal had insisted that Siegel remain actively involved with the litigation. The court interprets this acknowledgement to mean that, pursuant to Alien-Main’s wishes, Siegel did not delegate some time that he might othеrwise have delegated to attorneys with lower hourly billing rates.
IV.
[2] The court concludes that a reasonable attorney’s fee duе Allen-Main is $12,154.10, based upon a 20 percent reduction of the requested fee. The reduction is based on the insufficient detail for eаch hour claimed and the excessive use of senior partner hourly rates in research. C.C. Britain makes no objection to the costs Siegel itemized, and the court finds that Allen-Main is entitled to $1,166.46 in costs.
A judgment will enter in favor of Allen-Main and against C.C. Britain in the total amount of $13,320.56. It is
So Ordered.
Notes
. Section 303(i)(l) provides:
(i) If thе court dismisses a petition under this section other than on consent of all of all [sic] petitioners and the debtor, and if the debtor dоes not waive the right to judgment under this subsection, the court may grant judgment—
(1) against the petitioners and in favor of the debtor for—
(A) costs; or
(B) a reasonable attorney's fee; ....
. C.C. Britain cites the following authorities for this statement:
In re Bohack Corp.,
. Arithmetically, the hourly rate times the hours shown on Exhibit A total $15,459.50. The amount billed was $15,192.63. No explanation of the difference has been proffered.