Opinion
17-cv-4661-MKV
07-30-2024
JIAN WU, and FEN BIAO CAI, on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SUSHI NOMADO OF MANHATTAN, INC. d/b/a NOMADO 33, SUSHI PARA 33 CORPORATION d/b/a NOMADO 33, SUSHI PARA MANHATTAN, CORP, d/b/a SUSHI PARA, d/b/a SUSHI PARA 14th Street, d/b/a SUSHI PARA Third Avenue, d/b/a SUSHI PARA 88, WEI LOONG CHAN aka WEI LOON CHAN, WENWU CHEN, ZHOU LIN, SHENG R. DONG, and DING FENG ZHANG Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING IN LARGE PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL NEW YORK, NY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendants Sushi Para 33 Corporation, Sushi Para Manhattan Corporation, Zhou Lin, and Ding Feng Zhang (collectively, “Defendants”) were found liable after a jury trial for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”). [ECF Nos. 195 (“Verdict”)]. The Court requested that Magistrate Judge Figueredo conduct an inquest into damages, if any, to determine the amount of damages owed to Plaintiff based on the jury's verdict. See [ECF Nos. 203, 219, 224]. As a prevailing party, Plaintiff Fen Baio Cai moved to recover attorneys' fees and costs. [ECF No. 204 (“Motion for Attorneys' Fees”)]. The Court also referred Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs to Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo for a Report and Recommendation. [ECF No. 224].
On July 10, 2024, Magistrate Judge Figueredo issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the Court award liquidated damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $11,505.66, in addition to pre- and post-judgment interest, award attorneys' fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $51,463.31, and award costs in the amount of $4,521.15. [ECF No. 231 (“R&R”) at 1]. No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.
For a detailed recitation of the factual background and procedural history of the case, the Court refers both to its previous opinions in this case and to Magistrate Judge Figueredo's Report and Recommendation. See [ECF Nos. 80, 141, 225]; R&R 2-3. For the reasons set forth below, the Court adopts IN LARGE PART Magistrate Judge Figueredo's thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation and awards liquidated damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $11,498.10, in addition to pre- and post-judgment interest, and awards attorneys' fees to Plaintiff in the amount of $51,463.31, and awards costs in the amount of $4,521.15.
LEGAL STANDARD
When reviewing a report and recommendation, a district court judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Court reviews a report and recommendation to which no objections have been filed for clear error. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Colvin v. Berryhill, 734 Fed.Appx. 756, 758 (2d Cir. 2018); Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003). Because no party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation in this case, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See Mannix v. Phillips, 619 F.3d 187, 192 (2d Cir. 2010). To do otherwise “would reduce the magistrate's work to something akin to a meaningless dress rehearsal.” Vega v. Artuz, 97-cv-3775-LTS-JCF, 2002 WL 31174466, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted)
DISCUSSION
I. Damages
Magistrate Judge Figueredo began the calculation of damages by summarizing the jury's relevant findings. R&R at 3. Specifically, the jury found that Plaintiff was employed by Defendants 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 Defendant 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 |
| 01/2014 - 12/2014 | $8.00 | $704.00 |
| 01/2015 - 12/2015 | $8.75 | $770.16 |
| 01/2016 - 12/2016 | $9.00 | $792.00 |
| 01/2017 - 10/2017 | $11.00 | $968.00 |
The Court has carefully reviewed Magistrate Judge Figueredo's calculations on Plaintiff's minimum wages, overtime wages, and spread of wages claims for each relevant time period.
A. Damages for October 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013
Magistrate Judge Figueredo correctly calculated that for the period between October 2013 and December 30, 2013, at an hourly rate of $7.25 and corresponding overtime rate of $10.88, Plaintiff should have earned $681.66 per week. R&R at 4 (citing N.Y. Lab. Law § 652; Nakahata v. New York-Presbyterian Healthcare Sys., Inc., 723 F.3d 192, 200 (2d Cir. 2013)). During this time, however, the jury found that Plaintiff was only paid $638.16 per week. See [ECF No. 195 ¶ 5]. As a result, Plaintiff was underpaid $43.50 per week ($681.66 minus $638.16) 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 ($43.50 x 12.86 weeks). R&R at 5.
Magistrate Judge Figueredo calculated this weekly pay 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 (in sum 72 hours total per week) yielding overtime wages of $348.16. Because Plaintiff worked 12 hours per day (calculated by the jury's finding that Plaintiff worked 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). See R&R 4-5 n. 2. The Court follows this formula for the succeeding time periods.
On December 31, 2013, the New York minimum wage rose to $8.00 per hour (and in conjunction, the overtime rate similarly increased), but the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $7.25 per hour for the entire month of December 2013. See [ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5]; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. Thus, for the single day of December 31, 2013, at an hourly rate of $8.00 and a corresponding overtime rate of $12.00, Plaintiff's weekly wage for this period should have been $752.00. But, as previously noted, the jury found that Plaintiff was only paid $638.16 per week during this time, meaning Plaintiff was underpaid $113.84 per week or $15.94 for the single day of December 31, 2013. R&R at 5.
See supra note 1. Magistrate Judge Figueredo, and the Court in its review, utilized the same calculation process as outlined in Footnote 1 for each relevant time period.
This was calculated by multiplying the underpayment of $113.84 per week by 0.14 weeks (the length of the underpayment, which was the single day of December 31, 2013). R&R at 5 n. 3.
B. Damages for January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014
Magistrate Judge Figueredo next correctly calculated that for the period between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2014, at an hourly rate of $8.00 and a corresponding overtime rate of $12.00, Plaintiff should have earned $752.00 per week. R&R at 5-6 (citing N.Y. Lab. Law § 652). During this time, however, the jury found that Plaintiff was only paid $704.00 per week, meaning Plaintiff was underpaid $48.00 per week ($752.00 minus 704.00) for the 51.86 weeks he worked between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2014 (excluding December 31, 2014, when-as in the previous year-the minimum rage again rose, as discussed below), yielding a total underpayment of wages for that time period of $2,489.28 ($48. x 51.86 weeks). R&R at 5-6.
On December 31, 2014, the New York minimum wage rose again to $8.75 per hour (and in conjunction, the overtime rate increased), but the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $8.00 per hour for the entire month of December 2014. See [ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5]; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. Thus, for the single day of December 31, 2014, at an hourly rate of $8.75 and an overtime rate of $13.13, Plaintiff's weekly wage for this period should have been $822.66. But, as previously noted, the jury found that Plaintiff was only paid $704.00 per week during this time, meaning Plaintiff was underpaid $118.66 per week or $16.61 for the single day of December 31, 2014. R&R at 6.
See supra note 1.
See supra note 3.
C. Damages for January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015
Magistrate Judge Figueredo correctly calculated that for the period between January 1, 2015 through December 30, 2015, at an hourly rate of $8.75 and an overtime rate of $13.13, Plaintiff should have earned $822.66 per week. R&R at 6-7 (citing N.Y. Lab. Law § 652). However, the jury found that during this time, Plaintiff was only paid $770.16 per week. See [ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5]. Additionally, the jury found that between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2015, Plaintiff was employed by all Defendants (including Zhou Lin (“Lin”)), and between April 1, 2015, and December 30, 2015, he was employed by all Defendants except Lin. See [ECF No. 195 at ¶¶ 2, 4]. Because Plaintiff should have earned $822.66 per week, and the jury found he was paid only $770.16 per week, Plaintiff was underpaid $52.50 per week for the period between January 1, 2015 through December 30, 2015. See R&R at 7. As such, 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 (but not Lin), the underpayment was $2,047.50.
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 $9.00 per hour (and in conjunction, the overtime rate increased), but the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $8.75 per hour for the entire month of December 2015. See [ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5]; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. Thus, for the single day of December 31, 2015, at an hourly rate of $9.00 and an overtime rate of $13.50, Plaintiff's weekly wage for this period should have been $846.00. As previously noted, the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $770.16 per week during this time, meaning Plaintiff was underpaid $75.84 per week or $10.62 for the day of December 31, 2015. R&R at 6-7.
See supra note 1.
See supra note 3.
D. Damages for January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016
Magistrate Judge Figueredo also correctly calculated that for the period between January 1, 2016 and December 30, 2016, at an hourly rate of $9.00 and an overtime rate of $13.50, Plaintiff should have earned $846.00 per week. R&R at 7, 8 (citing N.Y. Lab. Law § 652). However, the jury found that during this time, Plaintiff was paid only $792.00 per week, meaning Plaintiff was underpaid $54.00 per week between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2014. Indeed, Magistrate Judge Figueredo correctly calculated that Plaintiff was underpaid $54.00 per week between January 1, 2016 and December 30, 2016. See R&R at 8. However, she determined that Plaintiff was “underpaid $54 per week for the 52 weeks he worked between” those dates. Id. (emphasis added). However, Plaintiff did not work a full 52 weeks under this pay rate because, as discussed below, New York's minimum wage rose again on December 31, 2016 to $11 per hour. Magistrate Judge Figueredo properly accounted for the exclusion of this one day, for example, for the period between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2014, where-as determined above-Plaintiff was underpaid “for the 51.86 weeks he worked between January 1, 2014 and December 30, 2014.” See R&R at 6. (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court applies that same reasoning to this time period, finding that Plaintiff was underpaid $54.00 for the 51.86 weeks he worked between January 1, 2016 and December 30, 2016 (excluding December 31, 2016, accounted for below), yielding a total underpayment of wages for that time period of $2,800.44 instead of the $2,808.00 that Magistrate Judge calculated in her Report.
On December 31, 2016, the New York minimum wage rose to $11.00 per hour (and in conjunction, the overtime rate increased), but the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $9.00 per hour for entire the month of December 2016. See [ECF No. 195 at ¶ 5]; N.Y. Lab. Law § 652. Thus, for the single day of December 31, 2016, at an hourly rate of $11.00 and an overtime rate of $16.50, Plaintiff's weekly wage for this period should have been $1,034.00. As previously noted, the jury found that Plaintiff was paid only $792.00 per week during this time, meaning Plaintiff was underpaid $242.00 per week or $33.88 for the day of December 31, 2016. R&R at 8-9.
See supra note 1.
See supra note 3.
E. Damages for January 1, 2017 through October 31, 2017
Finally, Magistrate Judge Figueredo correctly calculated that for the period between January 1, 2017 and October 31, 2017, at an hourly rate of $11.00 and an overtime rate of $16.50, Plaintiff should have earned $1,034.00 per week. R&R at 8-9 (citing N.Y. Lab. Law § 652). During this time, however, the jury found that Plaintiff was only paid $968.00 per week, meaning Plaintiff was underpaid $66.00 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. R&R at 9.
F. Total Damages
Compiling the underpayment as calculated above, the below chart reflects the total underpayment due to Plaintiff.
| Time Period | Underpayment |
| 10/01/2013 - 12/30/2013 | $559.41 |
| 12/31/2013 | $15.94 |
| 01/01/2014 - 12/30/2014 | $2,489.28 |
| 12/31/2014 | $16.61 |
| 01/01/2015 - 03/31/2015 | $667.28 |
| 04/01/2015 - 12/30/2015 | $2,047.50 |
| 12/31/2015 | $10.62 |
| 01/01/2016 - 12/30/2016 | $2,800.44 |
| 12/31/2016 | $33.88 0 |
| 1/01/2017 - 10/31/2017 | $2,857.14 |
| TOTAL | $11,498.10 |
Magistrate Judge Figueredo correctly noted that 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, the Court adopts in large part the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, modifying it slightly to find that Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated damages in the amount of $11,498.10. Of that amount Lin is jointly liable for only $667.28 of those liquidated damages.
G. Pre- judgment Interest
Magistrate Judge Figueredo also properly concluded that Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on unpaid wages, including unpaid minimum, overtime, and spread of hours wages. See R&R 11. Unlike the FLSA, NYLL provides for an award of prejudgment interest even when a plaintiff is also awarded liquidated damages. See NYLL § 198(1-a); N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5001(a); N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(1); Reilly v. NatWest Mkts. Grp. Inc., 181 F.3d 253, 265 (2d Cir. 1999). 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)); 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).
Magistrate Judge Figueredo thus correctly recommended awarding Plaintiff pre-judgment interest at New York's statutory rate of nine percent per annum, see N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5004, and she appropriately recommended that pre-judgment interest be calculated from October 16, 2015-the approximate midpoint between Plaintiff's first (October 1, 2013) and last (October 31, 2017) day of employment-until the date that judgment is entered. See R&R at 12.
H. Post- judgment Interest
Finally, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, post-judgment interest is mandatory in any civil case where money damages are recovered, running from the date of entry of judgment until payment. See Schipani v. McLeod, 541 F.3d 158, 165 (2d Cir. 2008); R&R 12. Magistrate Judge Figueredo therefore correctly recommended 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.
II. Attorneys' Fees and Costs
With respect to Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs, Magistrate Judge Figueredo carefully articulated and applied the proper legal standards. R&R 13-15. Plaintiffs who prevail on claims under the FLSA and the NYLL are, indeed, 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 short, “[i]n 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)). Moreover, the fee applicant-here, Plaintiff-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).
A. Reasonableness of the Hourly Rates Requested by Plaintiff's Counsel
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)). Particularly relevant here, 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. TransitAuth., 575 F.3d 170, 174-75 (2d Cir. 2009).
Plaintiff seeks fees for work performed by three Troy Law attorneys and two clerks: managing attorney John Troy ($650 per hour); managing associate Aaron Schweitzer ($400 per hour); associate Tiffany Troy ($250 per hour); managing clerk Preethi Kilaru ($200 per hour); and clerk Gavin Dass ($150 per hour). See [ECF No. 205 at ¶ 66]. However, as Magistrate Judge Figueredo correctly elucidated, the appropriate average attorneys' fees in this District are starkly lower. R&R at 15-16; 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) ($300 to $450 per hour for partners or heads of small firms practicing in the wage-and-hour field); Chen v. Shanghai Cafe Deluxe, Inc., No. 16-CV-4790 (VF), 2023 WL 2401376, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2023) ($250 to $450 per hour for experienced litigators); 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) ($100 to $200 per hour for junior associates).
Magistrate Judge Figueredo further noted Troy Law's increasingly troubling reputation in this Circuit with respect to the rates and hours that the Firm has requested. See R&R at 16; see also Garcia v. Francis Gen. Constr. Inc., No. 20-CV-4323 (JPC), 2022 WL 2698434, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2022) (declaring a “treatise worth of case law has emerged about the rates and hours that Troy Law has requested,” to which courts in this District have repeatedly “balked”) (collecting cases); 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); Yuajian Lin v. La Vie En Schezuan Rest. Corp., No. 15-cv-9507, 2020 WL 1819941 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2020) (reducing Troy Law hourly rates due to performance issues and noting that courts have reduced Troy Law requested rate a number of times “where Troy's performance at trial demonstrated a lack of skill and/or professionalism”); Shanfa Li v. Chinatown Take-Out Inc., No. 16-cv-7787, 2019 WL 3715086, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2019) (reducing Mr. Troy's fee from his requested rate to $300 an hour where he “repeatedly interrupted the Court, was disrespectful, and struggled to pose clear questions”); Hui Luo v. L & S Acupuncture, P.C., No. 14-cv-1003, 2015 WL 1954468, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2015) (noting that court could not justify a rate for Troy in excess of $300 per hour, where “[t]he trial was very rough in terms of demonstrating Mr. Troy's ability to formulate questions according to the rules of evidence”).
Finally, Magistrate Judge Figueredo individually walked through each attorney for whom Troy Law requested fees, citing a myriad of case law on the lower-than-requested hourly rates that courts in this Circuit have routinely awarded them. See R&R 16-21. In light of all these factors, Magistrate Judge Figueredo recommended the following reductions in hourly rates for the calculation of attorneys' fees:
| Individual | Requested Rate | Recommended Rate |
| John Troy | $650.00 | $400.00 |
| Aaron Schweitzer | $400.00 | $350.00 |
| Tiffany Troy | $250.00 | $150.00 |
| Aaron Schweitzer (non-legal work) | $200.00 | $175.00 |
| Tiffany Troy (pre- bar admission) | $150.00 | $75.00 |
| Preethi Kilaru | $200.00 | $75.00 |
| Gavin Dass | $150.00 | $75.00 |
For the foregoing reasons, and for all of the further reasons meticulously detailed in the Report and Recommendation (see R&R 16-21), the Court agrees with, and adopts, the reduced hourly rates recommended by Magistrate Judge Figueredo.
B. Reasonableness of Hours Expended by Plaintiff's Counsel
“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[.]” Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422, 425 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Chen v. Shanghai Cafe Deluxe, Inc., No. 16-CV-4790 (VF), 2023 WL 2401376, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2023); City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 569-70 n.4 (1986). 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. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983).
In light of this legal landscape, Magistrate Judge Figueredo recommended a reduction of 25% in Plaintiff's requested hours. See R&R at 21. Considering the reasons delineated by Magistrate Judge Figueredo (see R&R at 21-24), the Court finds no error in these reasonable reductions in Plaintiff's requested compensable hours. See McDonald ex rel Prendergast v. Pension Plan of the NYSA-ILA Pension Tr. Fund, 450 F.3d 91, 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (“A district court may exercise its discretion and use a percentage deduction as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee application.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Hines v. City of Albany, 613 Fed.Appx. 52, 54 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding the “essential goal in shifting fees . . . is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection”); SA Luxury Expeditions, LLC v. Schleien, No. 22-CV-3825 (VEC), 2023 WL 8072914, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2023) (applying fifty percent reduction of “fees on fees”).
Accordingly, when accounting for the recommended hourly rates and 25% reduction in compensable hours, Magistrate Judge Figueredo ultimately recommended that Plaintiff should be awarded $51,463.31 total in attorneys' fees. See R&R at 24 (chart). The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Figueredo's consideration of Plaintiff's fees request and the reductions recommended therein. In addition, the Court has independently reviewed and calculated Magistrate Judge Figueredo's recommended reductions and finds them to be accurate.
C. Costs
Finally, a prevailing plaintiff may recover his reasonable costs under both the FLSA and NYLL. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(1). Magistrate Judge Figueredo appropriately reviewed the itemized billing statement and corresponding declaration of Plaintiff's counsel and recommended that a number of costs not be awarded for lack of supporting documentation or receipts. See R&R 25-26. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Figueredo's recommendation to exclude these costs. See e.g., Fisher v. S.D. Prot., Inc., 948 F.3d 593, 600 (2d Cir. 2020) (holding “[t]he fee applicant must submit adequate documentation supporting the requested . . . costs”); Rubio v. BSDB Mgmt., Inc., 548 F.Supp.3d 362, 365 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (same); Olibares v. MK Cuisine Glob. LLC, No. 21-CV-10694 (VSB), 2023 WL 5702595, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2023) (same); 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). As such, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation's conclusion that Plaintiff should be $4,521.15 in costs.
CONCLUSION
The Court accordingly ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation IN LARGE PART, modifying the recommended award of liquidated damages solely to account for the increase in minimum wage adopted by New York State effective on the final day of December 2016. Specifically, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of liquidated damages in the amount of $11,498.10, with pre-judgment interest on that amount at 9% interest from October 16, 2015, until the date that judgment is entered. It is further ordered 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. Finally, Plaintiff is awarded $51,463.31 in attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $4,521.15. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested terminate the motion pending at docket entry 204, enter judgment as set forth herein, and close this case.
SO ORDERED.