CK • Washington.   Nomen est omen - oder auch nicht. Richterin Mauskopf sprach Rechtsanwalt McNamara das im Streit seiner Mandantin mit deren Ge­schäftsführer Katzenberg verdiente Honorar von $277.674,09 zu; der geg­ne­ri­sche Anwalt Ratner verlor. In New York City prüfte das Bundes­berufungs­ge­richt des zweiten Bezirks der USA am 26. September 2016 in Acme Am. Refri­ge­ra­tion Inc. v. Katzenberg die behaupteten Ermessens­feh­ler und bestätigte das Urteil:

A district court abuses discretion if its decision rests on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or "cannot be located with­in the range of permissible decisions." …
There was no abuse of discretion in awarding Law Office $277,674.09 in fees or in declining to grant prejudgment interest on that award. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation care­ful­ly examined Law Office's billing records and rates for their adequacy, reasonableness, and relevance to the present lawsuit. The district judge considered Acme's objections and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety under both clear error and de novo review.