Opinion
17-CV-04661 (MKV) (VF)
07-10-2024
JIAN WU, Plaintiff, v. SUSHI NOMADO OF MANHATTAN, INC. et al, Defendants.
REPORTAND RECOMMENDATION
VALERIE FIGUEREDO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Fen Baio Cai has moved for attorneys' fees following the conclusion of a jury trial in which Sushi Para 33 Corporation, Sushi Para Manhattan Corporation, Zhou Lin, and Ding Feng Zhang (collectively, “Defendants”) were found liable for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). See ECF Nos. 195, 204. As a prevailing party, Plaintiff is thus entitled to the recovery of attorneys' fees and costs. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 198(1-a), 663(1). Additionally, the undersigned has also been asked to conduct an inquest into damages to determine the amount of damages owed to Plaintiff, if any, based on the jury's verdict. See ECF Nos. 203, 219, 224.
For the reasons explained below, I respectfully recommend an award of damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $23,011.32. I further recommend an award of attorneys' fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $51,463.31, and an award of costs in the amount of $4,521.15.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff worked as a delivery man for two restaurants, Sushi Para 33 Corporation, d/b/a Nomado 33, and Sushi Para Manhattan Corporation, d/b/a Sushi Para, from October 2013 to October 2017. See ECF No. 71 (“Am. Compl”) at ¶¶ 10, 15, 18, 83-85; see also ECF No. 195. Lin and Zhang are the owners of Sushi Para 33 Corporation and Sushi Para Manhattan Corporation, a chain of Japanese restaurants in Manhattan. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-29, 34-35, 38, 42. Plaintiff Jian Wu, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, commenced this action on June 20, 2017, suing the owners and operators of the restaurants, Nomado 33 and Sushi Para, for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. Id. ¶¶ 48-59, 118-152; see also ECF No. 1. Cai commenced a separate action against Sushi Para and Sushi Para Manhattan Corporation, see Case No. 18-CV-1126 (MKV) (DCF), and on October 2, 2018, the Court ordered consolidation of Wu's and Cai's lawsuits. See ECF No. 50.
On March 20, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an FLSA collective. See ECF Nos. 72-74. On July 25, 2019, the Court granted the motion as it concerned a collective of delivery workers, sushi chefs, food packers, dishwashers, and wait staff employed by Defendants at any of three restaurants between June 20, 2014, and the present. See ECF No. 80 at 16, 18-20, 27. On November 9, 2023, Wu moved for dismissal of his claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, and the Court dismissed Wu's claims without prejudice the same day. See ECF Nos. 186, 189.
The case proceeded to a jury trial on January 30, 2024, before the Honorable Mary Kay Vyskocil. See Min. Entry, dated January 30, 2024. On February 1, 2024, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Cai against Defendants. See ECF No. 195.
Plaintiff was represented by attorneys from the Troy Law Firm since the inception of this case. See ECF No. 205 at ¶ 5. John Troy, the principal of Troy Law, represented Cai from his initial intake interview on December 5, 2018, through the “present day.” Id. ¶¶ 3, 5. Aaron Schweitzer, a managing associate at Troy Law, also represented Plaintiff, as lead counsel and the first chair during the trial. Id. ¶¶ 29, 36. Plaintiff also seeks fees for Tiffany Troy, an attorney, and Preethi Kilaru and Gavin Dass, two clerks at the firm. Id. ¶¶ 46, 59-65.
On February 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys' fees, as well as his proposed calculation of damages. See ECF Nos. 203-206. On March 1, 2024, Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for attorneys' fees. See ECF No. 220. That same day, Defendants also filed their proposed calculation of damages. See ECF No. 219. On March 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief in further support of the motion for attorneys' fees and a reply letter brief in further support of his calculation of damages. See ECF Nos. 222-223.
DISCUSSION
I. Plaintiff's Damages Award
For purposes of calculating Plaintiff's award of damages, the jury found that Plaintiff was employed by Sushi Para 33 Corporation, Sushi Para Manhattan Corporation, and Ding Feng Zhang between October 2013 through October 2017. See ECF No. 195 at ¶¶ 1-2. The jury also found that Zhou Lin was one of Plaintiff's employers between January and March 2015. Id. Additionally, the jury found that Plaintiff worked 72 hours per week during the entire term of his employment, working six days per week at an hourly rate and weekly wage as outlined in the table below. Id. ¶¶ 3-4, 10. Lastly, the jury found that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff the spread-of-hours pay he was entitled to receive when his workday exceeded ten hours. Id. ¶ 11.
Time Period
Hourly Rate
Weekly Pay
10/2013 - 12/2013
$7.25
$638.16
1/2014 - 12/2014
$8.00
$704.00
1/2015 - 12/2015
$8.75
$770.16
1/2016 - 12/2016
$9.00
$792.00
1/2017 - 10/2017
$11.00
$968.00
Given the jury's finding that Plaintiff's regular rate of pay in 2013 was $7.25,his overtime hourly wage should have been $10.88. See Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192, 200 (2d Cir. 2013) (explaining that the overtime rate is “no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of forty per week”). At an hourly rate of $7.25 and an overtime rate of $10.88, Plaintiff should have earned $681.66 per week between October 2013 and December 30, 2013. During this time, the jury found that Plaintiff was paid $638.16. As such, Plaintiff was underpaid $43.50 per week for the 12.86 weeks he worked between October 1, 2013, and December 30, 2013, yielding a total underpayment of wages for that time period of $559.41.
Plaintiff's hourly rate was equivalent to the New York minimum wage during the time period from October 1, 2013, to December 30, 2013. See N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. The jury, in its answers to the special interrogatories on the verdict sheet, found that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 6. No party raised any objection to the jury's finding either prior to or after the jury's discharge. As such, an objection to any purported inconsistency in the jury's verdict is waived. See Kosmynka v. Polaris Indus., Inc., 462 F.3d 74, 83 (2d Cir. 2006) (“It is well established that a party waives its objection to any inconsistency in a jury verdict if it fails to object to the verdict prior to the excusing of the jury.”); Seo v. Oh, No. 18-CV-785 (RDM), 2023 WL 143910, at *6 (D.D.C. Jan. 10, 2023) (finding waiver where there was no objection raised by the parties to the jury's answers to the court's special interrogatories). Waiver aside, there is no inconsistency in the jury's answers because, as shown in the calculations herein, the Plaintiff was not paid the applicable minimum wage during some of the hours he worked each calendar year, and Plaintiff also was not paid the spread-of-hours pay during the time he worked for Defendants.
This weekly pay was calculated in the following manner: Plaintiff's hourly rate ($7.25) was multiplied by 40 hours, yielding $290 in straight-time wages. Plaintiff's overtime earnings were calculated by multiplying his overtime hourly rate ($10.88) by 32 hours, yielding overtime wages of $348.16. Because Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day (72 hours per week divided by 6 days of work a week), he was entitled to a spread-of-hours pay of $7.25 per day, yielding $43.50 per week. Plaintiff's total weekly compensation should thus have been $681.66 ($290 + $348.16 + $43.50).
On December 31, 2013, the New York minimum wage rose to $8.00 per hour, but the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $7.25 per hour. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. As such, Plaintiff was also underpaid for this time period. Although the jury found that he was paid $290 in straight-time wages per week, he should have earned $320 in straight-time wages per week ($8 x 40 hours). At an hourly rate of $8.00, Plaintiff's overtime hourly rate was $12.00. Although he was paid $348.16 in overtime wages per week, he should have earned $384 in weekly overtime wages ($12 x 32 hours). Plaintiff was also entitled to spread-of-hours pay of $48 (6 days x $8/hour). In total, Plaintiff's weekly wage for this period should have been $752 ($320 + $384 + 48). Instead, Plaintiff was paid $638.16. Plaintiff was thus underpaid $113.84 per week or $15.94 for December 31, 2013.
This was calculated by multiplying the underpayment of $113.84 per week by 0.14 weeks (the length of the underpayment).
From January 1, 2014, to December 30, 2014, the jury concluded that Plaintiff's regular rate of pay was $8, consistent with the New York minimum wage at the time. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. The jury also found that Plaintiff earned $704.00 per week during this period. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 4. At an hourly rate of $8 and an overtime rate of $12, Plaintiff should have earned $752 per week between January 1, 2014, and December 30, 2014. During this time, the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $704. As such, Plaintiff was underpaid $48 per week for the 51.86 weeks he worked between January 1, 2014, and December 30, 2014, yielding a total underpayment of wages for that time period of $2,489.28.
This was calculated in the following manner: Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay ($8) was multiplied by 40 hours, yielding $320 in straight-time wages. Plaintiff's overtime wages were calculated by multiplying his overtime hourly rate ($12) by 32 hours, yielding overtime wages of $384. Because Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day (72 hours per week divided by 6 work days per week), he was entitled to spread-of-hours pay of $8 per day (yielding $48 per week). Plaintiff's total weekly compensation was thus $752 ($320 + $384 + $48).
On December 31, 2014, the New York minimum wage rose to $8.75 per hour, see N.Y. Lab. Law § 652, but the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $8 per hour. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5. As such, Plaintiff was therefore underpaid for this time period. Although the jury found that he was paid $320 in straight-time wages, he should have earned $350 in straight-time wages. At an hourly rate of $8.75, Plaintiff's overtime hourly rate was $13.13. Plaintiff was paid $384 in overtime wages, but should have earned $420.16 in overtime wages ($13.13 x 32 hours). Plaintiff was also entitled to spread-of-hours pay of $52.50 (6 days x $8.75/hour). In total, Plaintiff's weekly wage for this period should have been $822.66 ($350 + $420.16 + $52.50). Plaintiff was instead paid $704 per week. Plaintiff was thus underpaid $118.66 per week or $16.61 for this day.
This was calculated by multiplying the underpayment of $118.66 per week by 0.14 weeks (the length of the underpayment).
From January 1, 2015, to December 30, 2015, the jury concluded that Plaintiff's regular rate of pay was $8.75, consistent with the New York minimum wage at the time. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. The jury also found that Plaintiff earned $770.16 per week during this period. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 4. Additionally, the jury found that Plaintiff was employed by all Defendants (including Zhou Lin) between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2015, and between April 1, 2015, and December 30, 2015, he was employed by all Defendants except Lin. See ECF No. 195 at ¶¶ 2, 4. At an hourly rate of $8.75 and an overtime rate of $13.13, Plaintiff should have earned $822.66 per week. During this time, the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $770.16. As such, Plaintiff was underpaid $52.50 per week. For the time period from January 1, 2015, to March 31, 2015, when Plaintiff was employed by all Defendants (including Lin), his underpayment was $667.28. For the period from April 1, 2015, to December 30, 2015, when Plaintiff was employed by Defendants Sushi Para 33, Sushi Para Manhattan, and Zhang, the underpayment was $2,047.50.
This was calculated in the following manner: Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay ($8.75) was multiplied by 40 hours, yielding $350 in straight-time wages. Plaintiff's overtime wages were calculated by multiplying his overtime hourly rate ($13.13) by 32 hours, yielding overtime wages of $420.16. Because Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day (72 hours per week divided by 6 days of work a week), he was entitled to spread-of-hours pay of $8.75 per day (yielding $52.50 per week). Plaintiff's total weekly compensation was thus $822.66 ($350 + $420.16 + $52.50).
This was calculated by multiplying the weekly underpayment of $52.50 by the number of weeks in this time period (12.71 weeks).
This was calculated by multiplying the weekly underpayment of $52.50 by the number of weeks in this time period (39 weeks).
On December 31, 2015, the New York minimum wage rose to $9 per hour, see N.Y. Lab. Law § 652, but the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $8.75 per hour. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5. As such, Plaintiff was also underpaid for this time period. Although the jury found that he was paid $350 in straight-time wages, he should have earned $360 in straight-time wages ($9 x 40 hours). At an hourly rate of $9, Plaintiff's overtime hourly rate was $13.50. Plaintiff was paid $420.16 in overtime wages, but he should have earned $432 in overtime wages ($13.50 x 32 hours). Plaintiff was also entitled to spread-of-hours pay of $54 (6 days x $9/hour). In total, Plaintiff's weekly wage for this period should have been $846 ($360 + $432 + $54). Plaintiff was instead paid $770.16. Plaintiff was thus underpaid $75.84 per week or $10.62 for this one day.
This was calculated by multiplying the underpayment of $75.84 per week by 0.14 weeks (the length of the underpayment).
From January 1, 2016, to December 30, 2016, the jury concluded that Plaintiff's regular rate of pay was $9, consistent with the New York minimum wage at that time. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. The jury also found that Plaintiff earned $792.00 per week during this period. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 4. At an hourly rate of $9 and an overtime rate of $13.50, Plaintiff should have earned $846 per week between January 1, 2016, and December 30, 2016.During this time, the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $792. As such, Plaintiff was underpaid $54 per week for the 52 weeks he worked between January 1, 2016, and December 30, 2016, yielding a total underpayment of wages for that time period of $2,808.
This was calculated in the following manner: Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay ($9) was multiplied by 40 hours, yielding $360 in straight-time wages. Plaintiff's overtime wages were calculated by multiplying his overtime hourly rate ($13.50) by 32 hours, yielding overtime wages of $432. Because Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day (72 hours per week divided by 6 days of work a week), he was entitled to spread-of-hours pay of $9 per day (yielding $54 per week). Plaintiff's total weekly compensation should have been $846 ($360 + $432 + $54).
On December 31, 2016, the New York minimum wage rose to $11 per hour, see N.Y. Lab. Law § 652, but the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $9 per hour. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5. Plaintiff was therefore underpaid for this time period. Although the jury found that he was paid $360 in straight-time wages, he should have earned $440 in straight-time wages ($11 x 40 hours). At an hourly rate of $11, Plaintiff's overtime hourly rate was $16.50. Although he was paid $432 in overtime wages, he should have earned $528 in overtime wages ($16.50 x 32 hours). Plaintiff was also entitled to spread-of-hours pay of $66 (6 days x $11/hour). In total, Plaintiff's weekly wage for this period should have been $1,034 ($440 + $528 + $66). Plaintiff was instead paid $792 per week. Plaintiff was thus underpaid $242 per week or $33.88 for this one day.
This was calculated by multiplying the underpayment of $242 per week by 0.14 weeks (the length of the underpayment).
Finally, from January 1, 2017, to October 31, 2017, the jury concluded that Plaintiff's regular rate of pay was $11, consistent with the New York minimum wage at the time. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. The jury also found that Plaintiff earned $968.00 per week during this period. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 4. At an hourly rate of $11 and an overtime rate of $16.50, Plaintiff should have earned $1,034 per week.During this time, the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $968. Plaintiff was thus underpaid $66 per week for the 43.29 weeks he worked between January 1, 2017, and October 31, 2017, yielding a total underpayment of wages for that time period of $2,857.14.
This was calculated in the following manner: Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay ($11) was multiplied by 40 hours, yielding $440 in straight-time wages. Plaintiff's overtime wages were calculated by multiplying his overtime hourly rate ($16.50) by 32 hours, yielding overtime wages of $528. Because Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day (72 hours per week divided by 6 days of work a week), he was entitled to spread-of-hours pay of $11 per day (yielding $66 per week). Plaintiff's total weekly compensation was thus $1,034 ($440 + $528 + $66).
The chart below reflects the total underpayment due to Plaintiff. Defendants, except for Lin, are liable for underpayment of wages of $11,505.66. Lin, who the jury found was Plaintiff's employer from January 2015 through March 2015 only, is jointly liable for $667.28 of the $11,505.66 total underpayment.
| Time Period | Underpayment |
| 10/1/2013 - 12/30/213 | $559.41 |
| 12/31/2013 | $15.94 |
| 1/1/2014 - 12/30/2014 | $2,489.28 |
| 12/31/2014 | $16.61 |
| 1/1/2015 - 3/31/2015 | $667.28 |
| 4/1/2015 - 12/30/2015 | $2,047.50 |
| 12/31/2015 | $10.62 |
| 1/1/2016 - 12/30/2016 | $2,808.00 |
| 12/31/2016 | $33.88 |
| 1/1/2017 - 10/31/2017 | $2,857.14 |
| TOTAL | $11,505.66 |
Under both the FLSA and NYLL, an employee who succeeds in establishing that he was not paid straight-time or overtime wages is entitled to an award of liquidated damages under one but not both statutes. See Rana v. Islam, 887 F.3d 118, 122-23 (2d Cir. 2018). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated damages in the amount of $11,505.66. Of that amount, Lin is jointly liable for only $667.28 in liquidated damages.
Plaintiff's submission requests a damages amount of $103,566.43 for the underpayment of wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages, for a total award of $207,132.86 (not including pre-judgment interest). See ECF No. 203 at 4. To calculate this figure, Plaintiff assumed that the weekly pay determined by the jury for each year of his employment (see ECF No. 195 at ¶ 4) covered only straight-time wages and did not include pay for overtime hours. See ECF No. 203 at 3. This, however, ignores the jury's finding as to Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay during the relevant period. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5. For example, if Plaintiff's weekly pay in 2013 of $638.16 encompassed only payment of straight-time wages, than Plaintiff's hourly rate of pay would have been $15.95 ($638.16 divided by 40 hours). But the jury determined that Plaintiff's hourly rate in 2013 was $7.25 per hour. See ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5. The jury thus concluded that the weekly pay in 2013 of $638.16 included payment for straight-time wages ($290) and payment for overtime wages ($348.16). In short, relying on Plaintiff's calculation of damages would ignore the jury's findings as to the hourly rate of pay Plaintiff earned during his employment with Defendants.
Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of pre-judgment interest on unpaid wages. See Chen v. L&H Wine & Liquor, Inc., No. 19-CV-6115 (PG), 2024 WL 1932855, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2024); see also Echevarria v. ABC Corp., No. 21-CV-4959 (JS) (ARL), 2024 WL 1639934, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2024) (explaining that the NYLL permits an award of pre-judgment interest and liquidated damages). Where the violation of the FLSA or NYLL occurred over an extended period of time, courts “have generally calculated pre-judgment interest from ‘a singular, midpoint date and by multiplying the principal by the interest rate by the time period-from a singular, midpoint date-up until and including the date judgment is entered.'” Ramos v. Guaba Deli Grocery Corp., No. 20-CV-4904 (PAE) (JLC), 2021 WL 5563714, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2021) (quoting Soto v. Los Corbaticas Deli Grocers II Corp., No. 18-CV-3602 (JGK) (JLC), 2018 WL 4844018, at *7 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 5, 2018) report & recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 6173713 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2018)). The midpoint of a plaintiff's employment is a reasonable intermediate date from which to calculate pre-judgment interest. See Fermin v. Las Delicias Peruanas Rest., Inc., 93 F.Supp.3d 19, 49 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). The statutory rate of interest in New York is nine percent per annum. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004(a).
I recommend that pre-judgment interest be calculated from the approximate midpoint (October 16, 2015) between Plaintiff's first (October 1, 2013) and last (October 31, 2017) day of employment until the date judgment is entered in this case. Because the principal amount owed in unpaid wages is $11,505.66, Plaintiff is entitled to 9% interest on this figure from October 16, 2015, until the date that judgment is entered.
Finally, a plaintiff is “entitled to post-judgment interest on all money awards as a matter of right.” Tacuri v. Nithin Constr. Co., No. 14-CV-2908 (CBA) (RER), 2015 WL 790060, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2015) (citations omitted). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a), an award of post-judgment interest is mandatory in any civil case where money damages are recovered. See Espinoza v. Broadway Pizza & Rest. Corp., No. 17-CV-7995 (RA) (KHP), 2021 WL 7903991, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2021). I thus recommend that Plaintiff be awarded post-judgment interest, to be calculated from the date the Clerk of Court enters judgment in this action until the date of payment, using the federal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. See Begum v. Ariba Disc., Inc., No. 12-CV-6620 (DLC), 2015 WL 223780, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2015) (awarding postjudgment interest).
In sum, I recommend an award of straight-time wages, overtime wages, and spread-of-hours pay in the amount of $11,505.66. I also recommend an award of liquidated damages of $11,505.66. Additionally, I recommend an award of pre-judgment interest at 9% on $11,505.66, to be calculated from October 16, 2015, until the date that judgment is entered in this case. Finally, I recommend an award of post-judgment interest to be calculated at the federal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961.
II. Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
A. Legal Standards
Plaintiffs who prevail on claims under the FLSA and the NYLL are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law §§ 198(1-a), 663(1). “In calculating attorney's fees, the district court must first determine the ‘lodestar, [which is] the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the case.'” Stanczyk v. City of N.Y., 752 F.3d 273, 284 (2d Cir. 2014) (quoting Millea v. Metro-N. R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011)). In “extraordinary circumstances,” a district court may “adjust the presumptively reasonable fee,” that is, the lodestar, but only “when it ‘does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered in determining a reasonable fee.'” Lilly v. City of N.Y, 934 F.3d 222, 230 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Millea, 658 F.3d at 167). “[T]he fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983).
1. Hourly Rates
A reasonable hourly rate is the “rate a paying client would be willing to pay,” bearing in mind that “a reasonable, paying client wishes to spend the minimum necessary to litigate the case effectively.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2008). The rate awarded must be “in line with . . . prevailing [rates] in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, expertise and reputation.” McDonald ex rel Prendergast v. Pension Plan of the NYSA-ILA Pension Tr. Fund, 450 F.3d 91, 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (alterations in original) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)).
Courts have broad discretion in determining a reasonable attorneys' fee. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437; Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 183-84 (2d Cir. 2008). In determining a reasonable hourly rate, courts in the Second Circuit consider a number of factors (referred to as the Johnson factors), such as the labor and skill required, the difficulty of the issues in the case, the attorney's customary hourly rate, the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney, and fee awards in similar cases. See Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 186 n.3, 190; see also Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974). Of these, “‘the most critical factor' in a district court's determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney's fees in a given case ‘is the degree of success obtained' by the plaintiff.” Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132, 152 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992)). Additionally, when assessing an attorney's requested hourly rate, courts typically consider other rates awarded in the district in which the reviewing court sits. See Simmons v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2009) (recounting history of the forum rule).
2. Compensable Hours
“In determining the number of hours reasonably expended for purposes of calculating the lodestar, the district court should exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours[.]” Chen v. Shanghai Cafe Deluxe, Inc., No. 16-CV-4790 (VF), 2023 WL 2401376, at *16 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 8, 2023) (quoting Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422, 425 (2d Cir. 1999)). The court may also reduce hours “where the attorney's proffered time records are vague or otherwise inadequate to enable the court to determine the reasonableness of the work performed or the time expended.” Wen v. Hair Party 24 Hours Inc., No. 15-CV-10186 (ER) (DF), 2021 WL 3375615, at *14 (S.D.N.Y May 17, 2021) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433), report and recommendation adopted, 2021 WL 2767152 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2021). However, courts “need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants. The essential goal in shifting fees . . . is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.” Hines v. City of Albany, 613 Fed.Appx. 52, 54 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011)) (quotation mark omitted). Thus, “in dealing with items that are ‘excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, . . . the [district] court has discretion simply to deduct a reasonable percentage of the number of hours claimed as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee application.'” Id. at 54-55 (quoting Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 173 (2d Cir. 1998)); accord Green v. City of New York, 403 Fed.Appx. 626, 630 (2d Cir. 2010). Finally, with very limited exceptions, “contemporaneous time records are a prerequisite for attorney's fees in this Circuit.” N.Y. State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1147 (2d Cir. 1983); see also Finkel v. Universal Elec. Corp., 970 F.Supp.2d 108, 127-28 (E.D.N.Y 2013).
B. Reasonableness of the Hourly Rates Requested by Plaintiff's Counsel
Plaintiff seeks fees for work performed by three Troy Law attorneys and two clerks: managing attorney John Troy (at $650 per hour); managing associate Aaron Schweitzer (at $400 per hour); associate Tiffany Troy (at $250 per hour); managing clerk Preethi Kilaru (at $200 per hour); and clerk Gavin Dass (at $150 per hour). See ECF No. 205 at ¶ 66. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks fees at a reduced hourly rate of $200 for Aaron Schweitzer's performance of certain administrative tasks and for time spent “traveling” to and from court, and $150 per hour for administrative tasks performed by Tiffany Troy. ECF No. 205 at ¶¶ 45, 59.
In this District, courts have determined that a “fee ranging from $250 to $450 is appropriate for experienced litigators in wage-and-hour cases.” Chen v. Shanghai Cafe Deluxe, Inc., No. 16-CV-4790 (VF), 2023 WL 2401376, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2023) (quotation omitted). “For partners or heads of small law firms practicing in this area, the Court has usually approved hourly rates in the $300 to $450 range.” De La Cruz v. Trejo Liquors, Inc., No. 16-CV-4382 (VSB) (DF), 2019 WL 9573763, at *18 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 10, 2019) (citation omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2020 WL 4432298 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2020). For junior associates, $100 to $200 per hour is the norm in this Circuit. Hong v. Mito Asian Fusion, Inc., No. 19-CV-3149 (TAM), 2023 WL 3092722, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2023) (collecting cases); see also Wang v. XBB, Inc., No. 18-CV-7341 (PKC) (ST), 2023 WL 2614143, at *4 (E.D.N.Y Mar. 23, 2023) (noting that “[j]unior associates generally command $100 to $150” per hour) (alteration in original). As it pertains specifically to Plaintiff's attorneys, “[a] treatise worth of case law has emerged about the rates and hours that Troy Law has requested.” Garcia v. Francis Gen. Constr. Inc., No. 20-CV-4323 (JPC), 2022 WL 2698434, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2022). Courts in this District have repeatedly “balked” at the hourly rates requested by attorneys at the Troy Law Firm, awarding instead substantially lower rates. Id. at *7 (collecting cases); see also Yuan v. Hair & Lounge Inc., No. 18-CV-11905 (AT) (BCM), 2023 WL 4534872, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2023) (accord).
1. John Troy
John Troy received an LLM degree from Dickinson School of Law in 1985, was admitted to the New York bar in 1989, and is the principal of Troy Law. ECF No. 205 at ¶ 14. Troy represents that he is the attorney of record in at least 206 wage-and-hour cases in the Southern District of New York, 176 in the Eastern District of New York, 40 in other federal courts, and 12 in arbitration. Id. ¶¶ 17-20.
In recent cases, John Troy has been awarded fees in the range of $300 to $400 per hour. See Yuan, 2023 WL 4534872, at *5 (awarding Troy a $400 hourly rate); Shanghai Cafe Deluxe, Inc., 2023 WL 2401376, at *16 (awarding Troy a $300 hourly rate); Sanango v. Ruby Nails Tarrytown, Inc., No. 20-CV-08245 (PMH), 2023 WL 2707329, at *6 (S.D.N.Y Mar. 30, 2023) (awarding $300 hourly rate to Troy); De La Cruz Rosas v. Just Salad 60 Third LLC, No. 18-CV-7342 (JGK) (BCM), 2023 WL 5423982, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2023) (awarding $400 hourly rate to Troy); Wang v. XBB, Inc., No. 18-CV-7341 (PKC) (ST), 2024 WL 184263, at *1, 3 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2024) (rejecting request for $650 hourly rate for John Troy, and awarding a rate of $400 instead). As courts have repeatedly recognized, the reduced hourly rates for Troy and other attorneys at his firm are warranted because of the consistently poor quality of work, and the overbilling and other discrepancies apparent in billing records submitted by the firm in numerous cases. See Yuan, 2023 WL 4534872, at *5 (collecting cases noting reduction in hours due to poor work product); see also Shanghai Cafe Deluxe, Inc., 2023 WL 2401376, at *15; Wang, 2024 WL 184263, at *1 n.2 (noting that “Troy Law has been reprimanded numerous times for its billing practices”) (quotation omitted); Feng v. Kelai Corp., - F.Supp.3d -, No. 18-CV-12329 (RWL), 2024 WL 1348654, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2024) (discussing how courts in this District have rejected the rates requested by Troy Law in light of the consistently poor work product). Troy points to no case in which he was awarded the $650 hourly rate requested here. Troy instead points to a case where he was awarded a $550 hourly rate. See ECF No. 223 at 2 (citing Lianhua Weng v. Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen, Inc., No. 17-CV-273 (LAP), 2021 WL 2043399, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2021)).
Troy has offered no basis for an award of an hourly rate above the rate typically awarded to him by other courts in this District. Although this wage-and-hour case was resolved following a jury trial, Troy himself did not represent Plaintiff at trial. Additionally, the case raised straightforward claims concerning the underpayment of wages to a single restaurant employee. Further, the Court sanctioned Troy Law during the course of this litigation for the Firm's conduct, finding that the Firm had “demonstrated a lack of diligence in pursuing this case.” See ECF Nos. 141, 143 at 2. In short, the quality of the representation in this case does not merit an award of an hourly rate above the rate Troy has been awarded in similar wage-and-hour cases, even despite the Firm's success at trial. I therefore recommend that Troy be awarded an hourly rate of $400 for legal work performed on behalf of Plaintiff.
2. Aaron Schweitzer
Aaron Schweitzer graduated from Fordham University School of Law in 2016, was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 2017 and the New York bar in 2018, and serves as the “managing associate” at Troy Law. ECF No. 205 at ¶¶ 30-31. Schweitzer has approximately seven years of legal experience, and he served as lead counsel in this case. Id. ¶¶ 34, 36. Schweitzer is an attorney of record in at least 79 cases in the Southern District of New York, has about 10 FLSA jury trials a year, and charges $400 per hour (the same rate he seeks here) in “non-contingent matters.” Id. ¶¶ 37-39.
In recent cases, Schweitzer has been awarded significantly lower rates than the $400 rate requested here. See, e.g., Hong v. Mito Asian Fusion, Inc., No. 19-CV-3149 (TAM), 2023 WL 3092722, at *6 (E.D.N.Y Apr. 26, 2023) ($200 per hour, after settlement); Sanango2023 WL 2707329, at *6 ($150 per hour, after default); Shanghai Cafe Deluxe, Inc., 2023 WL 2401376, at *16 ($150 per hour, after default); Gao v. Umi Sushi, No. 19-CV-06439 (ALC) (SN), 2023 WL 2118203, at *13 (S.D.N.Y Jan. 31, 2023) ($250 per hour, after default); Garcia, 2022 WL 2698434, at *8 ($150 per hour, after default); De La Cruz Rosas, 2023 WL 5423982, at *9 (awarding $250 hourly rate after settlement); Yuan, 2023 WL 4534872, at *6 (awarding $250 hourly rate after trial).
Here, Schweitzer conducted depositions, defended the depositions of plaintiffs Wu and Cai, represented Cai during the three-day jury trial, and generally obtained a favorable outcome for Cai. See ECF No. 205-1. Given the work he performed and the favorable outcome he achieved, an hourly rate at the high end of what Schweitzer has typically been awarded by other courts in this District is warranted. I thus recommend awarding Schweitzer an hourly rate of $350 for time reasonably expended performing legal work. See Feng, 2024 WL 1348654, at *22 (awarding hourly rate of $400 to Schweitzer following jury trial). However, Schweitzer also billed for his travel time to and from court and for other administrative tasks like “print [and] bind[ing] joint exhibits” and “re-mark exhibits.” See, e.g., ECF No. 205-1 at 14. For those 20.59 hours, I recommend awarding him an hourly rate of $175 (half of his hourly rate for legal work). Feng, 2024 WL 1348654, at *22 (recommending an award of half the hourly rate for time expended traveling).
Troy's declaration indicates that 18.69 hours of Schweitzer's total 125.4 hours of work on this case were billed at a lower rate given the nature of the task Schweitzer performed during that time. See ECF No. 205 at ¶ 66. A review of the billing records confirms that Schweitzer spent 18.69 hours of time on administrative tasks. But that figure did not include 1.90 hours on February 1, 2021, that Schweitzer spent redacting Plaintiff's discovery production and creating a “bates index.” See ECF No. 205-1 at 8. Because that work, too, is administrative in nature and could have been performed by a paralegal, those 1.9 hours of time should have been billed at a lower rate. As such, Schweitzer should have billed 20.59 hours at his non-attorney rate and 104.81 at his attorney rate.
3. Tiffany Troy
Tiffany Troy graduated from Fordham School of Law, was admitted to the New York state bar on June 24, 2021, and is a certified Mandarin Chinese interpreter. ECF No. 205 at ¶¶ 46-47, 55. The billing records indicate that Tiffany Troy performed work on this case prior to her admission to the bar. That work ranged from completing non-legal tasks-such as contacting the client about a deposition, conducting the client intake, and interpreting for clients-to legal tasks, such as drafting affidavits. See, e.g., ECF No. 205-1 at 5, 7, 9-10.
Hourly rates awarded for Tiffany Troy have varied, but courts in this District have typically awarded $150 per hour. See, e.g., Yuan, 2023 WL 4534872, at *7 ($150 per hour for Tiffany Troy but only $75 per hour for pre-admission work and translation/interpretation services); De La Cruz Rosas, 2023 WL 5423982, at *10 (awarding $150 per hour for Tiffany Troy); Garcia, 2022 WL 2698434, at *8 (same); Feng, 2024 WL 1348654, at *23. Given the nature of the work she performed in this case and her inexperience, I recommend awarding Tiffany Troy $150 per hour for legal work, consistent with the rate awarded by other courts. For non-legal work, such as translation services, or for work she performed prior to her admission to the New York bar, I recommend awarding Tiffany Troy $75 per hour.
4. Preethi Kilaru
Plaintiff requests $200 per hour for Preethi Kilaru, the Managing Clerk at Troy Law. ECF No. 205 at ¶¶ 60, 62. She has worked with the Troy Law Firm since 2018 and before that was a legal assistant in India. Id. ¶ 60. The time records indicate that Kilaru performed a variety of clerical tasks, such as coordinating filings with the Court and service of process, communicating with opposing counsel and Plaintiff about scheduling, and transcribing depositions of defendants.
Plaintiff requests $200 per hour for Kilaru's services, but courts in this District have generally awarded Kilaru a far lower hourly rate. See, e.g., Wang, 2024 WL 184263, at *2 (awarding $75 hourly rate for Kilaru); Yuan, 2023 WL 4534872, at *7 ($75 per hour for Kilaru); Garcia, 2022 WL 2698434, at *8 ($70 per hour for Kilaru). Given the nature of the work she performed, an hourly rate of $75 is reasonable for Kilaru's services.
5. Gavin Dass
Plaintiff requests an hourly fee of $150 for Gavin Dass, a clerk at Troy Law. ECF No. 205 at ¶ 63. Dass, who “recently” graduated from John Jay College, has worked at Troy Law since January 2021. Id. From a review of the billing records, it appears that Dass performed administrative tasks, such as downloading documents to a database, sending e-mails regarding scheduling, and filing a motion. See ECF No. 205-1 at 13, 16.
There is one reported decision awarding fees for work performed by Dass, at an hourly rate of $150. See Sanango, 2023 WL 2707329, at *6.. However, that rate is unreasonably high given the nature of the work performed by Dass in this case. Moreover, a rate of $150 would be higher than the hourly rate courts have typically awarded Kilaru, another clerk at Troy Law who has far more experience than Dass and performed many more tasks in this case. As such, I recommend that Dass be awarded an hourly rate of $75, consistent with the hourly rate awarded to Kilaru.
C. Reasonableness of Hours Expended by Plaintiff's Counsel
Troy Law requests compensation for 238.44 hours of work on this case, from August 15, 2018, to February 15, 2024. See ECF No. 205-1; see also ECF No. 205 at ¶ 66. For a number of reasons, a reduction of 25% in the requested hours is warranted.
Although Troy Law began performing work for Plaintiff on June 5, 2017 (see ECF No. 205-1 at 1), Troy Law is not seeking fees for approximately 238 hours of work performed prior to August 15, 2018. See ECF No. 205 at ¶ 66; ECF No. 205-1 at 4.
First, the billing records reveal instances of attorneys performing paralegal and/or clerical work-such as compiling and filing exhibits, or sending an e-mail to opposing counsel with the link for a video deposition. See, e.g., ECF No. 205-1 at 6, 10. Additionally, John Troy, the principal of the Firm and the most senior attorney on the case, billed time for tasks that should have been performed by a more junior attorney or a paralegal, such as reviewing a notice of appearance for defendants; arranging the date of a mediation; e-mailing opposing counsel about deposition dates; drafting a letter requesting an extension of time; drafting and filing an amended complaint; drafting a certificate of default; and drafting status reports to the Court. See, e.g., ECF No. 205-1 at 5-9.
Second, there are various entries which do not appear to reflect work that was actually performed in this case, raising doubts as to the accuracy of the time records here. See Zang v. Daxi Sichuan, Inc., No. 18-CV-06910 (DG) (SJB), 2023 WL 2305934, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023) (noting that “the mere existence of even a few inconsistencies and questionable billing entries . . . renders the entire record suspect”) (internal quotation marks omitted, citations omitted, ellipses in original). For example, Schweitzer billed 1.90 hours to “Redact [Plaintiffs'] Discovery Production, Bates Index.” See ECF No. 205-1 at 8. But as Defendants point out (see ECF No. 220 at 16), Plaintiffs produced only 14 pages of documents in this case and none of those pages had any redactions. Plaintiff's counsel now claims that the time was spent adding bates stamp numbers to the documents in the production. See ECF No. 223 at 5. Even if that were true, billing 1.90 hours to add 14 bates stamp numbers is excessive.Additionally, Kilaru billed nearly 25 hours to “transcribe deposition of defendants.” See ECF No. 205-1 at 10. But Kilaru is not a court reporter and it is therefore not clear what transcription of a deposition she could have provided. And although the billing records indicate that Troy Law is not seeking fees for that work, the fact that the entries are even in the records raise questions about the accuracy of the billing records submitted to the Court. Further, Tiffany Troy billed 0.75 hours to “Translate Exhibits from Chinese to English.” See ECF No. 205-1 at 10. There were, however, no non-English documents produced by any party in this case. See ECF No. 220 at 16. What's more, there are entries attributed to mailing documents to opposing counsel. See, e.g., ECF No. 205-1 at 8 (“Print and Mail to OC Copy of Plaintiffs' 3d Interrogatories”). But Defendants' counsel states that he never received any documents by mail from Plaintiff's counsel, only through email. See ECF No. 220 at 17. Regardless, even if counsel sent physical documents via the U.S. mail to opposing counsel, the amount of time it took to mail a document (0.25 hours) is unreasonable.
Through experience, the Court understands that adding bates stamps to a production is a relatively quick and automated process that can be done using Adobe PDF. But even if a person were manually adding the bates stamp numbers to each page of the 14 pages produced by Plaintiff, it would still not take 1.90 hours of time.
Lastly, the time records contain entries that reflect inflated billing by Plaintiff's counsel. For instance, Kilaru billed 3 hours of time to “Print Notice of Pendency,” 3 hours of time to “Print Envelopes,” 3 hours to “Prepare Mailing Notice of Pendency,” and 1 hour to “Post Office Mailing.” See ECF No. 205-1 at 8. Defendants explain that only 11 notices were mailed to opt-in plaintiffs in this case. See ECF No. 220 at 21. Yet despite the small number of notices sent out, the task took 10 hours of time. Kilaru also billed 5 hours to “Input Names into Database” on February 13, 2020, and an additional 3.50 hours to the same task on July 30, 2020. ECF No. 2051 at 7-8. But Defendants' counsel notes that the names he provided to Plaintiff's counsel were already in a spreadsheet. ECF No. 220 at 21.
Additionally, Schweitzer billed the same amount of time (0.17 hours) twice in the same day for the task of “email OC re: possibility of settlement.” See ECF No. 205-1 at 15. Defendants' counsel notes that each e-mail he received that day from Plaintiff's counsel contained less than 12 words and could not have taken the more than 10 minutes per e-mail that Plaintiff's counsel billed for that task. See ECF No. 220 at 21-22. As a final example, John Troy billed 0.25 hours to “Notice of Mediator Assignment.” See ECF No. 205-1 at 11. Even if the Firm's most senior attorney needed to review the notice assigning a mediator, it is not clear why that review would have taken 15 minutes.
I thus recommend an overall reduction of 25% to the total compensable hours submitted by Troy Law. See, e.g., Zang, 2023 WL 2305934, at *8 (reducing hours by 30% for Troy Law Firm); Chen v. Marvel Food Servs. LLC, No. 15-CV-06206, 2022 WL 4226098, at *5 (E.D.N.Y Sept. 9, 2022) (reducing Troy Law's compensable hours by 30% where the invoice reflected “poor billing practices and/or redundant time” and John Troy “frequently billed . . . ministerial tasks that should have been handled by junior attorneys or administrative staff”); Yuan, 2023 WL 4534872, at *9 (recommending a 25% across the board reduction in hours billed).
I thus recommend an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $51,463.31, as outlined in the chart below.
| Individual | Requested Rate | Reasonable Rate | Recorded | Hours Reduction Reasonable | Hours Adjusted Fees | |
| John Troy | $650 | $400 | 59.33 | 25% | 44.4975 | $17,799.00 |
| Aaron Schweitzer | $400 | $350 | 104.81 | 25% | 78.6075 | $27,512.63 |
| Tiffany Troy | $250 | $150 | 7.61 | 25% | 5.7075 | $856.13 |
| Aaron Schweitzer (non-legal work) | $200 | $175 | 20.59 | 25% | 15.4425 | $2,702.44 |
| Tiffany Troy (pre-bar admission) | $150 | $75 | 5.58 | 25% | 4.185 | $313.88 |
| Preethi Kilaru | $200 | $75 | 39.02 | 25% | 29.265 | $2,194.88 |
| Gavin Dass | $150 | $75 | 1.50 | 25% | 1.125 | $84.38 |
| Total | $51,463.31 |
D. Costs
Under both the FLSA and NYLL, a prevailing plaintiff may recover his reasonable costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(1). “An award of costs ‘normally include[s] those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the attorney,'” but “[t]he fee applicant must submit adequate documentation supporting the requested . . . costs.” Fisher v. S.D. Prot., Inc., 948 F.3d 593, 600 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting Reichman v. Bonsignore, Brignati & Mazzotta P.C., 818 F.2d 278, 283 (2d Cir. 1987)). “Court fees reflected on the Court's docket are sufficiently substantiated, as are costs for which a claimant provides extrinsic proof, such as invoices or receipts.” Guo v. Tommy's Sushi, Inc., No. 14-CV-3964 (PAE), 2016 WL 452319, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2016) (citation omitted).
Troy Law seeks an award of costs in the amount of $5,433.96. See ECF No. 205 at ¶ 67. Plaintiff submitted an itemized billing invoice documenting the expenses, see ECF No. 205-1 at 17, and receipts to support payment of only some of these expenses, see id. at 19-21. Of the costs sought by Plaintiff, $400 is attributable to the filing fee for the complaint. This cost is awardable even without documentation. See Ventura v. Putnam Gardens Parking Corp., No. 20-CV-119 (JGK) (VF), 2023 WL 3603589, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2023).
Although the itemized billing statement provided by Plaintiff has total expenses of $7,198.13, including an expense for the payment of attorneys' fees to Defendants, Troy's declaration states that Plaintiff seeks to recover only $5,433.96 in costs. Compare ECF No. 205-1 at 17 with ECF No. 205 at ¶¶ 67-68
Plaintiff also seeks $750 in costs associated with service of the summons and complaint on five defendants named in the action. See ECF No. 205 at ¶ 67. Plaintiff, however, has not provided any documentation or receipts to substantiate that cost. See Li v. HLY Chinese Cuisine Inc., 596 F.Supp.3d 439, 453 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022) (declining to award service costs where no documentation was provided to support expense). Plaintiff also seeks $51.80 in postage fees, see ECF No. 205-1 at 17, but again provides no documentation to support these expenses. Additionally, Plaintiff seeks $38.08 in printing costs and $82.10 in travel costs, id., for which Plaintiff has not provided any receipts. Although fees for process servers, postage, photocopying, and travel are reimbursable, it is the Plaintiff's burden to provide “receipts, invoices, or other evidence to support the costs requested.” Jones v. Pawar Bros. Corp., No. 17-CV-3018 (PKC) (SJB), 2023 WL 6214213, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2023) (quoting Cortes v. Juquila Mexican Cuisine Corp., No. 17-CV-3942 (RER), 2021 WL 1193144, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2021)). Without any documentation supporting these costs, I recommend that the costs not be awarded.
Finally, Plaintiff seeks $4,121.15 in costs for payment of a translator for trial, the cancellation fee for a trial interpreter, and payment to the court reporter during the deposition of Defendant Zhang. See ECF No. 205-1 at 17; ECF No. 205 at ¶ 67. For these costs, Plaintiff submitted receipts documenting the expenses. See ECF No. 205-1 at 19-21. As such, these costs are properly awardable. See Jones, 2023 WL 6214213, at *13 (awarding costs for depositions); Cuevas v. Ruby Enters. of N.Y, Inc., No. 10-CV-5257 (JS) (WDW), 2013 WL 3057715, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 2013) (awarding translator costs).
In sum, I recommend an award of costs in the amount of $4,521.15.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, I recommend an award of damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $23,011.32. I also recommend that Plaintiff be awarded pre-judgment interest on the amount of unpaid wages ($11,505.66) at 9% interest from October 16, 2015, until the date that judgment is entered. Additionally, I recommend that Plaintiff be awarded post-judgment interest, to be calculated from the date the Clerk of Court enters judgment in this action until the date of payment, using the federal rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. As it concerns an award of attorneys' fees, I recommend that Plaintiff be awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $51,463.31 and costs in the amount of $4,521.15.
SO ORDERED.
PROCEDURE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO THIS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have fourteen (14) days (including weekends and holidays) from service of this Report and Recommendation to file any objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P . 6(a), 6(b), 6(d). A party may respond to any objections within 14 days after being served. Any objections and responses shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Any request for an extension of time to file objections or responses must be directed to the Honorable Mary Kay Vyskocil. If a party fails to file timely objections, that party will not be permitted to raise any objections to this Report and Recommendation on appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), 6(b), 6(d); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile, P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010).