THOMAS TUCKER, Bankruptcy Judge
On August 5, 2008, Harvey Babcock Associates, d/b/a Babcock Carlson, Special Counsel for Debtor, filed a fee application in a document entitled, "Application For Attorney Compensation" (Docket # 515), and a 15-day notice of the fee application (Docket # 517). On August 15, 2008, a response to the fee application was filed by the Michigan Conference of Teamsters Welfare Fund, which was later withdrawn. (Docket ## 519, 520). On August 18, 2008, Kenneth M. Schneider filed a limited objection to the fee application (Docket # 521). On August 25, 2008, the applicant and Mr. Schneider filed a "Stipulation To Entry of Amended Order Resolving Limited Objections to Application for Attorney Compensation" (Docket # 524), and submitted a proposed order granting the fee application.
The Court cannot grant the fee application, but instead must deny it without prejudice, for the following reasons. First, the applicant's 15-day notice is insufficient. Under Fed.R. Bankr P. 2002(a)(6), the applicant must file, and serve on all creditors, a 20-day notice of the fee application.
Second, the applicant's Certificate of Service filed on August 5, 2008 (Docket # 518) is inadequate because it indicates that all creditors on the matrix were automatically served electronically by the ECF system with the notice. That is not correct. It appears that not all of the creditors have been served with the 15-day notice (which notice, as noted above, is inadequate in any event).
For the above reasons, the proposed order granting the fee application was submitted prematurely, because even though two objections have been withdrawn or resolved, the deadline for filing objections to the fee application has not yet passed.
Finally, in addition to the notice/service problems noted above, the fee application does not comply with all of the requirements of L.B.R. 2016-1(a) (E.D. Mich) (as amended, effective May 5, 2008), including the paragraph numbering and formatting requirements of that rule, as well as the substantive requirements of that local rule. One example of a substantive deficiency is that no itemization of attorney time is included. That is required even where the fee is a contingent fee. L.B.R. 2016-1(a)(15) makes no exception for contingent fees.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the fee application filed by Harvey Babcock Associates, d/b/a Babcock Carlson, Special Counsel (Docket # 515) is denied, without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a new fee application that fully complies with all applicable rules, including L.B.R. 2016-1(a) (E.D. Mich).