The questions involved in this appeal are well set out in the Reports and Recommendations of the magistrate judge and the district court’s dispositive order of January 23, 2007, 2007 WL 191308. They are whether appellant failed to meet its burden of apportioning the fees attributable to its defense of appellee’s civil theft claim — as distinguished from appellee’s claims for negligence and conversion — and whether the district court erred in determining that the compensable time appellant spent in defense of the civil theft claim was excessive.

Having considered the parties’ arguments, we agree with the district court, for the reasons stated in its dispositive order, that appellant failed to satisfy its apportionment burden. As for the attorney’s fees, we find no error in the court’s determination of the hourly rate.

AFFIRMED.