Opinion
20cv07387 (JSR) (DF)
06-03-2021
MANUEL DE JESUS ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. JOSE PALMA, JOSE PALMA, JR., THE JOSE PALMA IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Defendants.
SCHEDULING ORDER FOR INQUEST AS TO ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge
By Memorandum and Order dated May 27, 2021, the Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, U.S.D.J., granted summary judgment in this case, in Plaintiff's favor (see Dkt. 27), and, on that same date, Judge Rakoff referred the matter to this Court to conduct an inquest as to the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs that should be awarded to Plaintiff, as against defendants Jose Palma, Jose Palma, Jr., and The Jose Palma Irrevocable Trust (herein, “Defendants”) (see id.; see also Dkt. 28). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. No later than July 6, 2021, Plaintiff shall serve on Defendants and file a fee application, detailing the amount of attorneys' fees and costs sought. Plaintiff's submission should:
a. include copies of Plaintiff attorneys' contemporaneous time records, so that this Court may assess whether the requested fees are reasonable, see New York Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1148 (2d Cir. 1983);
b. address the reasonableness of the hourly rates of the attorneys working on the matter and their support staff, see Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2008); and
c. provide copies of invoices or other documentation substantiating the amount of costs that have been incurred.
2. Defendants shall submit a response, if any, to Plaintiffs submission no later than August 5, 2021.
3. IF DEFENDANTS FAILS TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSIONS BY AUGUST 5, 2021, THEN THIS COURT WILL PROCEED TO ISSUE A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING ATTORNEY'S FEES ON THE BASIS OF PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONE. FURTHER, THIS COURT WILL NOT HOLD A HEARING ON ATTORNEY FEES, UNLESS DEFENDANTS REQUESTS A HEARING, IN WRITING, BY AUGUST 5, 2021. See Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co., 951 F.2d 504, 508 (2d Cir. 1991) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) “allows but does not require . . . a hearing”); Fustok v. ContiCommodity Servs. Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989) (“[I]t [is] not necessary for the District Court to hold a hearing, as long as it ensured that there was a basis for the damages specified in a default judgment.”).
SO ORDERED