4 and Costs and Incorp. Br., Pulaski Cty., Ark. Cir. Ct., No. 60CV-15-3153 (Jan. 5, 2016). Respondent also argued that Petitioners’ fee request was excessive and unreasonable for a number of reasons.1 Id. at 3. In passing, Respondent cited authority for the proposition that the Arkansas Supreme Court, not the trial court, would be the proper court to consider any request for appellate fees. Id. at 8. Despite being afforded a reply by the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioners chose not to file one. ARK. R. CIV. P. 6(c). The trial court did not rule on Petitioners’ fee request at that time, and the matter sat dormant while the case was on appeal. 2. Proceedings on Appeal. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. Smith v. Pavan, 505 S.W.3d 169 (Ark. 2016). This Court summarily reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision. 137 S. Ct. 2075. On October 19, 2017, on remand from this Court, the Arkansas Supreme Court “reverse[d] the [trial] court’s [original] order” and “remand[ed] for entry of a final judgment consistent with the mandate of ” this Court. Pet. App. 15a. 1 For example, Petitioners’ counsel routinely billed .2 hours for each text message to and from her clients, many of which occurred in group messages, resulting in huge quantities of “billable” time for conversations that likely took seconds. See Def.’s Resp. to Pls.’ Mot. for Att. Fees and Costs and Incorp. Br. at 8–9, Pulaski Cty., Ark. Cir. Ct., No. 60CV-15-3153 (Jan. 5, 2016). Recognizing Petitioners’ counsel had grossly overbilled for those messages, the trial court later substantially reduced Petitioners’ requested award as “unreasonable.” Supp. App. 25.