Summary
noting that "recent opinions from the Southern District of New York have determined that reasonable hourly rates in this district are approximately $200-$350 per hour for associates."
Summary of this case from Dimopoulou v. First Unum Life Ins. Co.Opinion
08-20-2013
KALI CLARK , Plaintiff, v. GOTHAM LASIK, PLLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Francis (Dkt. No. 65) ("Report"), recommending that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Gotham Lasik, PLLC ("Gotham Lasik") for $72,203.17 in back pay, together with attorneys' fees and costs of $45,580.94 for a total of $117,784.10.
Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action on February 24, 2011, (Dkt. No. 1) pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code 8-101 et seq., alleging that Gotham Lasik failed to accommodate her disability and wrongfully terminated her on account of that disability. Plaintiff seeks back pay, front pay, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. On April 24, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendant Gotham Lasik. (Dkt. No. 53). On April 29, 2013, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Francis for inquest on damages, attorneys' fees and costs. (Dkt. No. 55). An inquest hearing was held before Judge Francis on June 12, 2013. On June 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed the pending Motion for Attorneys' Fees. (Dkt. No. 62)
On August 2, 2013, Judge Francis issued the Report, recommending that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Gotham Lasik, PLLC, for $72,203.17 in back pay, together with attorneys' fees and costs of $45,580.94 for a total of $117,784.10.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "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)(C). The district court "may adopt those portions of the report to which no 'specific, written objection' is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Adams v. New York State Dep't of Educ., 855 F. Supp. 2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)).
Having reviewed the Report, to which no objection has been made, the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report in its entirety as the decision of the Court. Judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Gotham Lasik PLLC for $72,203.17 in back pay, together with attorneys' fees and costs of $45,580.94 for a total of $117,784.10.
Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this Order to Defendant Gotham Lasik.
The Clerk is directed to close the motion at docket number 62 and close this case.
SO ORDERED. Dated: August 20, 2013
New York, New York
______________________
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE