Roush

MEMORANDUM **

Bobby Berosini, Sr., and others (collectively, “the Berosinis”) appeal the district court’s award of $256,087.07 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Jeanne Roush’s attorneys, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Roush has met the applicable standard for the award of fees. See, e.g., Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 , 437 n. 12, 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983) (“Plaintiffs counsel, of course, is not required to record in great detail how each minute of his time was expended.”).

In their submissions, Roush’s attorneys provided adequate and clear information to describe the fees expended, and the Berosinis fail to present any evidence that the amounts requested were in fact unreasonable, redundant, or excessive, given the work performed and the nature of the case. Moreover, Roush’s attorneys specifically deducted certain expenditures from the amounts requested and the magistrate judge deducted further amounts. They explained the fees’ justifications, showing attention to proper billing. See Dressier v. Seeley Co. (In re Silberkraus), 336 F.3d 864, 872 (9th Cir.2003) (noting example of properly…