1. a detailed description of the services rendered, the amount of time spent, the hourly rate, and the total amount claimed; and 2. a summary of relevant qualifications and experience.” D.C. Colo. L.Civ.R. 54.3(B). In addition, “[ujnless otherwise ordered by the court, a motion for attorney fees shall be supported by one or more affidavits.” Id. 54.3(A). Other than requesting attorney’s fees in their pre-judgment pleadings, the LaAsmars failed to follow any of these other required procedures. Under these circumstances, the district court did not err in not addressing their request for fees. See Bender; 436 F.3d at 750 (affirming the district court’s denial of an untimely Rule 54(d)(2)(B) motion for fees in an ERISA case); cf. Quigley v. Rosenthal, 427 F.3d 1232, 1236-38 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). B. Prejudgment interest An award of
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to strike when movant failed to show prejudice holding that it is an abuse of the courts discretion to consider an untimely filing in the absence of a motion to enlarge demonstrating excusable neglect holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorneys fees because plaintiffs rule 54d2 motion was untimely and they had failed to show excusable neglect that would justify extending the time they had to file such a motion