plaintiff has not responded to the defendant's opposition.
In order to arrive at a reasonable and proper amount for an attorney fee, we must initially determine the lodestar: "the number of hours reasonably expended [on successful litigation] multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Copeland v. Marshall, 205 U.S. App. D.C. 390, 641 F.2d 880, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc). The reasonable hourly rate is that which is charged and paid in the community for similar services taking into consideration the skill, reputation and experience of counsel. 205 U.S. App. D.C. 390, 641 F.2d 880, 892. Moreover, the burden is on the applicant "to provide specific evidence of the prevailing community rate for the type of work for which she seeks an award." National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec'y of Defense, 219 U.S. App. D.C. 94, 675 F.2d 1319, 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
The plaintiff's application together with the affidavit of lead counsel, merely states she has been engaged in the practice of law for 15 years, and that the itemized list of services rendered represents fees and costs attributed to the successful prosecution of the Equal Pay Act claim.
This is wholly inadequate to carry the plaintiff's burden under the Concerned Veterans standard. The affiant does not spell out the skill, reputation and experience of counsel, nor is the application accompanied by any affidavits or other evidence of the prevailing community rate for similar services at the time they were performed, nor does the itemization itself detail the work performed so as to enable the Court to determine just what work and effort went into the preparation and presentation of the various claims presented.
The Court realizes that in some instances evidence in support of the various counts may have a common nuclear of operative facts making it difficult to attribute certain services to specific counts. Nevertheless, it is the Court's responsibility in the exercise of its discretion to determine what percentage of the fee for claims supported by common facts is to be attributed to the claim on which she prevailed. Goos v. National Ass'n of Realtors, 314 U.S. App. D.C. 329, 68 F.3d 1380, slip op. at 15 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
Accordingly, the plaintiff's application for attorney fees is denied without prejudice to resubmit with appropriate documentation.
An appropriate order accompanies this opinion.
November 30, 1995
PATRICK J. ATTRIDGE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Upon consideration of the pending post verdict motions, the oppositions, replies, the entire record and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is this 30 day of November, 1995:
ORDERED that the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiff's Equal Pay Act claim is denied. 
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion for liquidated damages is denied. The motion for prejudgment interest is granted. [39-1, 39-2] The judgment shall be amended so as to include interest on the sum of $ 9,925.92 from October 1, 1991.
FURTHER ORDERED that costs be and hereby taxed against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff  in the following sums:
Filing fees $ 121.00
Service of subpoena $ 65.00
Copying costs $ 300.00
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.