Andujar v. Gen. Nutrition Corp.

5 Citing cases

  1. Phillips v. Starbucks Corp.

    Civil Action 19-19432 (D.N.J. Aug. 16, 2023)

    Tax gross up damages are intended to “compensate[] [a plaintiff] for the negative tax consequences of receiving a lump sum award in employment discrimination actions.” Andujar v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., No. 14-7696, 2018 WL 3999569, at *9 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2018).

  2. Smith v. Presidio Networked Sols.

    Civil Action 22-736 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 5, 2024)

    . Tax gross up damages, therefore, are intended to “compensate[] [a plaintiff] for the negative tax consequences of receiving a lump sum award in employment discrimination actions.” Andujar v. General Nutrition Corp., Civ. No. 147696, 2018 WL 3999569, at *9 (D.N.J Aug. 20, 2018). In Marcus v. PQ Corp., an Age Discrimination in Employment (“ADEA”) case, the court stated:

  3. Kissinger v. The Mennonite Home

    Civil Action 20-3000 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2022)

    Moreover, although the Third Circuit has not explicitly ruled on this issue, the Court finds it appropriate to incorporate Kissinger's front pay award in calculating this additional sum, as other courts in this Circuit have done. See Andujar v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Civ. A. No. 14-7696, 2018 WL 3999569, at *10 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2018) (“It makes logical sense that if the purpose of a[n] . . . award is to compensate plaintiff for moving into a higher tax bracket, the amount of plaintiff's future pay award should be considered. After all, the award will be taken into account in computing plaintiff's tax bracket.”); O'Neill v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 108 F.Supp.2d 443, 447 (E.D. Pa. 2000) (“Compliance with this goal requires reimbursement for the reduced amount of front pay money that the plaintiff has to invest as a result of higher taxes, as well as reimbursement for the higher taxes he must pay on his back wages caused by getting this money in a lump sum.”).

  4. Ams. for Prosperity v. Grewal

    Case No. 3:19-cv-14228-BRM-LHG (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2021)   Cited 7 times

    all they sought was either preserving or challenging S150. Also, AFP did not engage in any extensive and prolonged discovery, motion, trial or appeal practices, which may render a case complex. See In re Pet Food Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 1850, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94603, at *110-11 (D.N.J. Nov. 18, 2008), vacated on other grounds, 629 F.3d 333 (3d Cir. 2012) (ruling that "this case go[es] to trial rather than settle weighs in favor of" finding the case complex); Material Techs. Inc. v. Carpenter Tech. Corp., No. 01-2965, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28893, at *18 (D.N.J. Sept. 16, 2004) (finding "the obvious complexity of this particular discovery dispute, as evidenced by the voluminous motion practice and appeal"); In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., 297 F.R.D. 136, 154-55 (D.N.J. 2013) (finding the litigation complex as the plaintiffs' counsel "engaged in extensive discovery and motion practice, and the litigation of this matter has been a costly and lengthy process for all parties"); Andujar v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., No. 14-7696, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141244, at *9-10 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2018) ("Although plaintiff and defense counsel have likely litigated more complex cases, the case was not routine. Discovery was contentious and the Court had to address and resolve challenging discovery disputes.

  5. Slomovitz v. Enclave at Fairways Homeowners Ass'n

    Civil Action No. 18-16910 (FLW) (TJB) (D.N.J. Oct. 30, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    In support of their entitlement to these fees, Plaintiffs' counsel has submitted declarations showing their experience in the field of civil rights and religious liberty litigation, and that the requested rates are generally in line with rates charged in this District. See, e.g., Jama v. Esmor Correction Services, Inc., 577 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009) (approving hourly rate of $600.00 seven years ago in a religious civil rights case); Scanno v. F.H. Cann & Assocs., Inc., No. 16-5943, 2018 WL 4522075, at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 5, 2018) (approving hourly rate of $500 per hour in an action pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act); Andujar v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., No. 14-7696, 2018 WL 3999569, at *2 (D.N.J. Aug. 20, 2018) ($450 per hour in an action under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination). Based on these representations, I am satisfied—with the one caveat discussed below—that Plaintiffs' hourly fees are reasonable.