Summary
approving hourly rate of $400 to founding partner with 13 years' experience in labor and employment law
Summary of this case from Browder v. Advertisement Carriers Enters., Inc.Opinion
11cv03080 (AT) (DF)
04-30-2015
JOSE PATINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRADY PARKING, INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge :
Currently before this Court, in this action for unpaid wages, is the application of plaintiff Jose Patino ("Plaintiff") for $2,945.00 in attorneys' fees incurred in connection with his motion for discovery sanctions. (Dkt. 97.) Plaintiff timely made this application in accordance with the Order of the Honorable Analisa Torres, U.S.D.J., dated February 6, 2015 (Dkt. 95), resolving Plaintiff's motion for discovery sanctions by adopting the Report and Recommendation issued by this Court on January 22, 2015 (Dkt. 92). In its Report and Recommendation, this Court had concluded that sanctions were warranted against defendants Brady Parking, Inc., 800 Brady Parking, Inc., Jose Dominguez, and Jacobo Dominguez (collectively, "Defendants"), and had recommended that Defendants be directed to reimburse Plaintiff for certain attorneys' fees he incurred in moving for sanctions. Plaintiff has now submitted an application for those fees, and Defendants have not opposed or otherwise responded to Plaintiff's application.
For the reasons discussed below, Defendants are hereby directed to pay Plaintiff the sum of $2,945.00, as requested by Plaintiff.
I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
The Court has discretion to determine the amount of attorneys' fees that would be appropriate to satisfy a fee award. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). As a general matter, the "starting point" in analyzing whether claimed attorneys' fees are appropriate is "the lodestar - the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the case." Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (lodestar calculation creates "presumptively reasonable fee" (internal quotation marks omitted; citing Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty. of Albany., 522 F.3d 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2008) and Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010)). There is generally a strong presumption that the lodestar represents the appropriate award, although "enhancements may be awarded in rare and exceptional circumstances." Perdue, 559 U.S. at 552 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The party seeking fees bears the burden of demonstrating that its requested fees are reasonable, see Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984), and the party's fee application must be supported by contemporaneous time records that "specify, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done," New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1148 (2d Cir. 1983).
An attorney's hourly rate is considered reasonable when it is "in line with those [rates] prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Blum, 465 U.S. at 895 n.11. Although the fee applicant has the burden of demonstrating prevailing market rates for comparable work, see Broome v. Biondi, 17 F. Supp. 2d 230, 237 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), the Court may also apply its "own knowledge" of rates charged in the community in assessing the reasonableness of the rates sought, Miele v. New York State Teamsters Conf. Pension & Ret. Fund, 831 F.2d 407, 409 (2d Cir. 1987). In Arbor Hill, the Second Circuit emphasized that the "reasonable hourly rate is the rate a paying client would be willing to pay." Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 190. In assessing whether an hourly rate is reasonable, the Court should "bear in mind that a reasonable, paying client wishes to spend the minimum necessary to litigate the case effectively." Id. When an attorney's requested hourly rate is higher than rates found to be reasonable in the relevant market, it is within the Court's discretion to reduce the requested rate. See Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1998).
Where the requested amount of fees is excessive because the number of stated hours is greater than that which should have been required for the work produced, the Court should reduce the stated hours accordingly. See Seitzman v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 311 F.3d 477, 487 (2d Cir. 2002) (the time component should not reflect excessive hours). In determining whether an excessive amount of time was expended on a matter, the Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and quality of the work submitted by counsel in connection with the litigation, see Kirsch v. Fleet St. Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 173 (2d Cir. 1998); In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 226, 232 (2d Cir. 1987), as well as the degree of counsel's success, see Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436.
II. PLAINTIFF'S FEE APPLICATION
Plaintiff is represented by Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C. (the "Borrelli Firm" or the "Firm"), which has informed the Court that it "maintains a caseload of between 200 and 300 active cases with approximately 100 cases presently in litigation," and primarily represents plaintiff employees in employment litigation. (Declaration of Anthony P. Malecki in Support of Plaintiff's Application for Attorneys' Fees Pursuant to Court Order dated February 6, 2015, dated Feb. 25, 2015 ("Malecki Decl.") (Dkt. 98), at ¶¶ 24, 26.)
The $2,945.00 now being sought by the Borrelli Firm is broken down as follows:
(1) $1,632.50 incurred in connection with bringing Plaintiff's sanctions motion, including:
(a) .6 hours spent by partner Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. ("Borrelli"), at the rate of $400 per hour,
(b) .9 hours spent by senior counsel Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. ("Coleman"), at the rate of $325 per hour, and
(c) 4.4 hours spent by associate Michael J. Palitz, Esq. ("Palitz"), at the rate of $250 per hour (id. at 3); and
(2) $1,312.50 incurred in connection with preparing the fee application itself, including:
Plaintiff has supported its fee application with information regarding the Borrelli Firm's billing practices and the qualifications of each individual attorney (id. ¶¶ 11-49), as well as contemporaneous time records (id., Exs. 1-2).(a) .5 hours spent by Coleman, and
(b) 4.6 hours spent by associate Anthony P. Malecki, Esq. ("Malecki"), at the rate of $250 per hour (id. at 4).
As to the hourly rates that are being requested, the Court notes that the two senior attorneys from the Borrelli Firm whose work is at issue here (Borrelli and Coleman) recently sought fees, in both this district and the Eastern District of New York, at rates somewhat lower than those requested in this case. See Alvarez v. 215 N. Ave. Corp., No. 13cv7049 (NSR) (PED) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2015) (report and recommendation (Dkt. 22), at 13 (recommending that Borrelli's time be compensated at the rate of $350 per hour, and that Coleman's time be compensated at the rate of $275 per hour, both as requested)); Dominguez v. B.S. Supermarket, Inc., No. 13cv7247 (RRM) (CLP), 2015 WL 1439880, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2015) (adopting recommendation that fees be awarded for Borrelli at the rate of $350 per hour, and Coleman at the rate of $275 per hour, as requested). The Court also notes that the rates that are now being sought - including $400 per hour for Borrelli and $325 per hour for Coleman - are arguably at the high end of what has been approved in this district, within the last few years, for lawyers of similar experience in wage-and-hour litigation. See, e.g., Ibarra v. HSCS Corp., No 10cv5109 (KBF), 2012 WL 3964735, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2012) (finding rate of $350 per hour to be reasonable for an experienced employment law litigator in wage case); Gurung v. Malhotra, 851 F. Supp. 2d 583, 597 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Courts in this district have determined in recent cases that the range of appropriate fees for experienced civil rights and employment law litigators is between $250 and $450" per hour (citations omitted)); Kadden v. VisuaLex, LLC, No. 11cv4892 (SAS), 2012 WL 6097656, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2012) (finding rate of $375 per hour to be reasonable for a "well-respected solo practitioner with approximately twenty-five years of legal experience with a focus on labor and employment law and litigation"); Tackie v. Keff Enterprises LLC, No. 14cv2074 (JPO), 2014 WL 4626229, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014) (approving of requested rate of $400 per hour for "2003 graduate of Hastings College of Law with over ten years of experience specializing in wage and hour litigation"); Castellanos v. Mid Bronx Cmty. Hous. Mgmt. Corp., No. 13cv3061 (JGK,) 2014 WL 2624759, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2014) (approving of requested rate of $350 per hour for "50% shareholder" of firm who had practiced law "for several decades"); Aguilera v. Cookie Panache ex rel. Between the Bread, Ltd., No. 13cv6071 (KBF), 2014 WL 2115143, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2014) (awarding fees at the rate of $300 for a partner and $200 for counsel in FLSA action, based on "the prevailing rates in this district for employment law cases").
Nonetheless, this Court finds that the rates currently being requested for these two attorneys are reasonable, given their levels of experience and the overall range of rates that have been accepted in this district in similar cases. According to Plaintiff's submission, Borrelli, for whom reimbursement is requested at the rate of $400 per hour, is the founding partner of the Firm; has "been practicing law for over thirteen years with a primary focus on the litigation of labor and employment cases"; and is actually paid by the Firm's clients at the rate of $500 per hour. (Malecki Decl. ¶¶ 19, 29.) Coleman, for whom reimbursement is requested at the rate of $325 per hour, serves as "Senior Counsel" to the Firm; graduated from law school in 2008; "manag[es] a complex caseload" of 30 to 40 cases at a time; handles motions, evidentiary hearings, and trials; "oversees and directly supervises all of the work of the Firm's associates"; and is actually paid by the Firm's clients at the rate of $400 per hour (id. ¶¶ 33, 35-37). Based on Plaintiff's submission, both of these attorneys qualify as experienced litigators in their field, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover fees based on rates that reflect this. Moreover, even though these senior attorneys recently sought somewhat lower rates in other cases (see supra), counsel are entitled to adjust their rates over time. The Court also notes that Defendants have not opposed the requested rates, despite having been given an opportunity to do so.
Similarly, this Court finds that the requested rates for the two attorneys associated with the Borrelli Firm are also reasonable. Plaintiff seeks reimbursement at the rate of $250 per hour for associates Palitz and Malecki, even though the Borrelli Firm "typically" billed for Palitz's services at the rate of $350 per hour (id. ¶ 43), and "typically" bills for Malecki's services at the rate of $400 per hour (id. ¶ 49). Palitz reportedly graduated from law school in 2010; handled class and collective action wage-and-hour matters prior to joining the Borrelli Firm; and, at the Firm, handled all aspects of his own primarily wage-and-hour caseload. (Id. ¶¶ 39, 41, 42.) Malecki reportedly graduated from law school in 2006, and, after practicing in a small civil litigation firm in California, began working at the Borrelli Firm in 2013. (Id. ¶¶ 45-47.) Once again, the associate rate that is being sought here is somewhat higher than the associate rates, for the same firm, that have been accepted in other cases. See Alvarez, No. 13cv 7247 (Dkt. 22), at 13-14 (recommending approval of rate of $150 per hour for Borrelli Firm associate); Guzman v. Joesons Auto Parts, No. 11cv4543 (ETB), 2013 WL 2898154, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013) (adopting recommendation that fees be awarded at the rate of $200 per hour for work of Borrelli Firm associates). Nonetheless, the requested rate of $250 per hour still falls within the range of associate rates that have been approved in this district over the last several years, see, e.g., Saunders v. City of New York, No. 07cv830 (SAS), 2009 WL 4729948, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2009) (awarding $200 to $300 per hour to associates in action for unpaid wages); Galeana v. Lemongrass on Broadway Corp., No. 10cv7270 (GBD) (MHD), 2014 WL 1364493, at *13 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2014) (adopting recommendation that fees be awarded at the rate of $250 per hour to junior associate who had litigated FLSA claims since 2006); Agudelo v. E & D LLC, No. 12cv960 (HB), 2013 WL 1401887, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2013) (awarding fees at rate of $200 per hour to associate with three years' experience in action for unpaid wages), and, once again, this Court notes that the requested rate has not been opposed by Defendants.
Palitz departed the Borrelli Firm in January 2015. (Id. ¶ 38.) --------
As to the time spent on relevant tasks, this Court has reviewed the time records submitted by the Borrelli Firm, and finds that the time expended by the Firm was reasonable. In total, the Borrelli Firm claims to have spent 5.9 hours preparing and submitting Plaintiff's motion for sanctions, and, although the memorandum of law that the Firm submitted was only a few pages in length (see Dkt. 85), spending fewer than six hours to prepare the motion in its entirety was hardly excessive. In addition, almost two-thirds of the time spent on this motion was expended by associate Palitz, with some supervision by Coleman and Borrelli - an appropriate allocation of resources based on the nature of the task. Finally, this Court notes that the Borrelli Firm duly excluded from its requested award those tasks that Judge Torres, through adoption of this Court's Report and Recommendation, held to be non-compensable, in connection with the sanctions motion at issue. (See Dkt. 92, at 3.)
The Borrelli Firm also reasonably spent 5.1 hours preparing the fee application, with roughly 90 percent of that time having been spent by associate Malecki, and 10 percent (i.e., only half an hour) having been spent by the more senior attorney, Coleman. "It is settled that the time spent on a fee application is itself compensable," Reiter v. Metro. Transp. Auth. of State of New York, No. 01cv2762 (GWG), 2007 WL 2775144, at *18 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2007) (citations omitted), and the 5.1 hours expended here - for tasks that included the preparation of a supporting declaration and memorandum of law, as well as the review of the Firm's time records - is quite modest.
In sum, this Court concludes that Plaintiff should be reimbursed in the requested amount of $2,945.00, calculated as follows:
| Timekeeper | ReasonableHours | ReasonableHourly Rate | Fees | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. | 0.6 hours | x | $400/hour = | $ 240.00 |
| Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. | 1.4 hours | x | $325/hour = | $ 455.00 |
| Michael J. Palitz, Esq. | 4.4 hours | x | $250/hour = | $ 1,100.00 |
| Anthony P. Malecki, Esq. | 4.6 hours | x | $250/hour = | $ 1,150.00 |
| Total: | $ 2,945.00 |
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees (Dkt. 97), made in accordance with Judge Torres's February 6, 2015 Order, is hereby GRANTED. Defendants are directed to pay to Plaintiff the sum of $2,945.00, representing the attorneys' fees reasonably incurred in connection with Plaintiff's sanctions motion and subsequent fee application. Dated: New York, New York
April 30, 2015
SO ORDERED
/s/_________
DEBRA FREEMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to:
All counsel (via ECF)