ORIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. PRECISION CHARTERS

Full title: ORIX FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., formerly known as ORIX CREDIT ALLIANCE…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 29, 2007

05 Civ. 9346 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2007)

Opinion

05 Civ. 9346 (KMW).

October 29, 2007

OPINION ORDER

KIMBA WOOD, District Judge

On September 11, 2007, Plaintiff Orix Financial Services, Inc. filed a motion for attorneys' fees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), against Defendants Precision Charters, Inc. and James W. Sigmon. Defendants opposed the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

DISCUSSION

^{1 2} See Kingvision Pay-Per-View Ltd. v. Palaguachi2007 WL 42994Marisol A. ex rel. Forbes v. Giuliani111 F. Supp. 2d 381386

1 Plaintiff originally requested $12,000 in attorneys' fees for the same 53.35 hours of work on this case. In his Reply Affirmation, however, Plaintiff's counsel stated that, "[Plaintiff] was billed at a reduced hourly rate of $175.00 per hour. This resulted in total billings to [Plaintiff] of $9,336.25. My client is willing to limit its request to this amount, since it is more than fair and reasonable for the time spent in this matter." (Reply 2.)

2 Defendants argue that the submitted time records are insufficiently detailed because they do not indicate the lawyer that actually performed the work recorded. (Opp'n 1.) However, Plaintiff's counsel clarified in his Reply Affirmation that all of the work set forth in the submitted time records was performed by him, except for 3.5 hours of work performed by other associates at his firm. (Reply 1.)

Defendants argue, however, that the amount requested should be reduced because the work performed by Plaintiff's counsel was "cookie cutter" work, given the fact that Plaintiff's counsel has represented Plaintiff in "dozens, if not hundreds" of similar lawsuits. (Opp'n 2.) Notwithstanding Plaintiff's counsel's prior experience with similar cases, Plaintiff's counsel was still required to review and respond to the specific factual disputes raised by Defendants in their various moving papers in this case. The Court finds that the time and effort expended by Plaintiff's counsel in doing so was reasonable.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion is granted. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff $9,336.25 in attorneys' fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case; any pending motions are moot.

SO ORDERED.