Landaeta et al v. Da Vinci's Florist LLC et al

Filing 24

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Connelly on 10/21/2011. (kns, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
____________________________________
XIOMARA LANDAETA, et al.
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
DA VINCI’S FLORIST, LLC, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. WGC-10-3247

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court and ready for resolution is Plaintiffs’ Petition for Award of
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Document No. 18). Defendants filed a Response (Document No. 21)
and Plaintiffs a Reply (Document No. 22). On May 18, 2011 the Court convened a status
conference and heard the parties’ positions about Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees and costs.
By way of background on November 17, 2010 Plaintiffs Xiomara Landaeta, Ana O.
Ceron, Azucena A. Cruz, Karan Marisol Santos, and Guadalupe Valasquez, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Da Vinci’s
Florist LLC and Sharon Abarjel. The five plaintiffs are floral arrangers employed by Da Vinci’s
Florist LLC. Sharon Abarjel is the owner and president of Da Vinci’s Florist LLC.
The Plaintiffs alleged that they consistently worked more than 40 hours each week and
were not compensated at a time and a half rate for any overtime hours worked. Relief was
sought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq., the Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl., §§ 3-501, et seq., the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law, Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. §§ 3-401, et seq., and the common law
count of quantum meruit. See Document No. 1.
1

On January 20, 2011 Defendants filed their Answer. See Document No. 4. On March
22, 2011 the parties filed a Joint Consent to All Further Proceedings by Magistrate Judge
Connelly. See Document No. 12. On April 7, 2011 the parties filed a Consent Motion to Seal
Confidential Settlement Agreement.

See Document No. 14.

The undersigned granted the

consent motion on April 11, 2011. See Document No. 17.
Plaintiffs seek $32,558.00 in attorneys’ fees and $991.41 as costs, for a total award of
$33,549.41. Defendants assert, in light of this straightforward and uncontested case, a more
appropriate award would be $9,595.00 in attorneys’ fees and $450.00 as costs, for a total award
of $10,045.00. In their reply Plaintiffs assert the attorneys’ fees and the costs sought are
reasonable and should be awarded as requested.
There is no disagreement about the hourly rate for Plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs request
an hourly rate of $400.00 for R. Scott Oswald, an hourly rate of $400.00 for Nichols W.
Woodfield and an hourly rate of $115.00 for the legal assistant(s) and law clerk(s).

See

Document No. 18 at 2. Defendants stipulate to the reasonableness of the hourly rates. See
Document No. 21 at 2 n.2. The Court notes the hourly rates for Plaintiffs’ counsel and for the
legal assistant(s) and law clerk(s) are consistent with Appendix B: Rules and Guidelines for
Determining Attorneys’ Fees in Certain Cases of the Local Rules. The Court finds the hourly
rates, as stipulated by the parties, are reasonable.
Defendants challenge as unreasonable the number of hours claimed by Plaintiffs’ counsel
in light of this “straightforward and uncontested case.” Not surprisingly, Plaintiffs assert the
time expended in this case was necessary and reasonable and the Court therefore should award
the attorneys’ fees and costs as requested.

2

In assessing the reasonableness of the time expended, this Court considers the twelve
factors identified in Johnson v. Georgia Housing Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974),
which the Fourth Circuit has adopted. See Pellegrin v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. (In re Abrams &
Abrams, P.A.), 605 F.3d 238, 244 (4th Cir. 2010). The twelve Johnson factors are: “(1) the time
and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the level of skill required
to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to
acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the
time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the
results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the
‘undesirability’ of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the
client; and (12) awards in similar cases.” In re Abram & Abrams, P.A., 605 F.3d at 244 (citation
omitted). The Court now considers these factors.
A.

Attorneys’ Fees
1.

The Time & Labor Required:

Plaintiffs’ counsel spent 165.10 hours on this case. The Court has carefully reviewed the
eleven (11) pages of billable hours. The Court notes, for the first eleven lines of entries,
Plaintiffs do not seek compensation.
The Court begins with a review of the initial hours of this litigation: investigation until
filing of the returns of service. On five occasions, between September 14 and December 14,
2010, Jeremy Schneider, paralegal/law student, prepared Landaeta agenda (.50 hours), prepared
agenda for Landaeta meeting (.50 hours), prepared agenda and reviewed materials for Landaeta
meeting (.70 hours), reviewed materials and prepared agenda for Landaeta meeting (1.00 hour)
and reviewed documents and prepared agenda for Landaeta meeting (1.00 hour). Those five

3

occasions of preparation were in addition to a meeting on September 14, 2010, a meeting on
September 21, 2010, two meetings on October 19, 2010, a meeting on October 26, 2010, a
meeting on November 8, 2010 and a meeting on December 14, 2010. There were also two
additional meetings regarding opt-ins.

The Court finds there are an excessive number of

meetings and preparations of agenda. The Court therefore will STRIKE the various entries for
preparing agenda, namely, (a) .50 hours or $57.50 for “prepare Landaeta agenda” on September
14, 2010 [#27]; (b) .50 hours or $57.50 for preparing agenda for Landaeta meeting on September
21, 2010 [#31]; (c) .70 hours or $80.50 for preparing agenda and reviewing materials for
Landaeta meeting on October 12, 2010 [#34]; (d) 1.00 hour or $115.00 for reviewing materials
and preparing agenda for Landaeta meeting on November 8, 2010 [#42]; and (e) 1.00 hour or
$115.00 for reviewing documents and preparing agenda for Landaeta meeting regarding returns
of service and settlement negotiation on December 14, 2010 [#78].
With regard to drafting the complaint, the first entry is on September 14, 2010 by Jeremy
Schneider, noting “Scott Oswald/Nick Woodfield/Jeremy Schneider meeting – to review 1st
draft of complaint for client review”, totaling .30 hours. Attorneys Nick Woodfield and Scott
Oswald, both compensated at $400.00/hour, billed for this .30 hours meeting.
Woodfield and Mr. Oswald have significant legal experience.

Both Mr.

The presence of both Mr.

Woodfield and Mr. Oswald does not appear to be warranted. It appears to the Court that Mr.
Woodfield was the lead attorney in this case. The Court thus STRIKES Scott Oswald’s billable
time of (a) .30 hours or $120.00 for the September 14, 2010 “meeting – to review 1st draft of
complaint for client review” [#151]. For the same reason, the Court hereby STRIKES Scott
Oswald’s billable time of (b) .30 hours or $120.00 for meeting “to discuss status of complaint
drafting” on September 21, 2010 [#153]; (c) .30 hours or $120.00 for meeting “to review draft

4

complaint and discovery drafting schedule” on September 28, 2010 [#156]; (d) .30 hours or
$120.00 for meeting “to discuss status of opt-in identification and timing of filing” on October
12, 2010 [#159]; (e) .30 hours or $120.00 for meeting “to discuss status of complaint d[r]afting”
on October 19, 2010 [#161]; (f) .30 hours or $120.00 for meeting “to discuss status [sic] status of
opt-in meeting and complaint drafting” on October 26, 2010 [#163]; (g) .30 hours or $120.00 for
meeting “to discuss status result of opt-in meeting” on November 8, 2010 [#165]; (h) .30 hours
or $120.00 for meeting “to discuss status of complaint review and discovery drafting” of
November 16, 2010 [#173]; (i) .30 hours or $120.00 for meeting “to discuss service of complaint
and discovery drafting schedule” of November 30, 2010 [#177]; (j) .20 hours or $80.00 for
meeting “to discuss status of filing of returns of service” on December 14, 2010 [#186] and (k)
.30 hours or $120.00 for meeting “to discuss case investigation/evaluation protocol” on August
12, 2010 [#141].
On December 2, 2010 Nick Woodfield had a telephone conference with opposing counsel
about potential settlement resolution of the case, well before Defendants filed their Answer to the
Complaint on January 20, 2011. On January 5, 2011 Scott Oswald, Nick Woodfield and Jeremy
Schneider had a meeting to discuss the status of settlement discussions. Additionally, on January
24, 2011 Scott Oswald, Nick Woodfield and Jeremy Schneider met to discuss admissions in
Defendants’ Answer. And, on March 21, 2011 Scott Oswald, Nick Woodfield and Jeremy
Schneider met to discuss status of settlement discussion and fee petition. Because the Court
finds it was not necessary for two attorneys, with 15 plus years’ experience to participate in these
meetings, the Court hereby STRIKES (a) Scott Oswald’s .30 hours or $120.00 on January 5,
2011 [#191], (b) Scott Oswald’s .30 hours for $120.00 on January 24, 2011 [#198] and (c) Scott
Oswald’s .20 hours or $80.00 on March 21, 2011 [#212].

5

According to the spreadsheet of billable hours on January 11, 2011 Jeremy Schneider met
with Scott Oswald and Nick Woodfield to discuss “status of motion for notice” [#81]. Jeremy
Schneider billed .30 hours or $34.50. Similarly, on January 11, 2011, both Nick Woodfield and
Scott Oswald billed .30 hours ($120.00) each for meeting “to discuss status of motion for notice”
[#193-194]. Jeremy Schneider spent 3.00 hours ($345.00) drafting a motion for notice on
January 12, 2011 [#82]. Eight days later, on January 20, 2011, Jeremy Schneider continued
drafting the motion for notice spending 3.00 hours ($345.00) on this task [#84]. The Court has
reviewed the docket and cannot locate any motion for notice. No such motion was filed during
January of 2011. Plaintiffs filed a Status Report on February 3, 2011. See Document No. 8. The
next matter filed by Plaintiffs was the Joint Consent to All Further Proceedings by Magistrate
Judge Connelly on March 18, 2011. See Document No. 12. Because there is no information on
the docket or on the spreadsheet of billable hours that the motion for notice was either filed with
the Court or served on Defendants, the Court hereby STRIKES all entries related to the motion
for notice.
For the reasons outlined in the preceding paragraphs, the Court reduces the requested
attorneys’ fees by $2,990.00.
In its careful review of the spreadsheet of billable hours, the Court discovered eight
instances when an activity is billed twice. Those entries are noted below.
Date
Employee ID
3/11/11 Jeremy
Schneider

3/11/11 Jeremy
Schneider

Narrative
Correspond w/ clients re
call-in information for
conference call w/ Nick
Woodfield to discuss
settlement proposal
(#118)
Correspond w/ clients re
call-in information for
conference call with
6

Hours on Bill
0.40

Rate on Bill
$115.00

Amount
$46.00

0.40

$115.00

$46.00

3/11/11 Jeremy
Schneider

3/11/11 Jeremy
Schneider

3/21/11 Jeremy
Schneider

3/21/11 Jeremy
Schneider

3/10/11 Nick
Woodfield

3/10/11 Nick
Woodfield

3/17/11 Nick
Woodfield

3/17/11 Nick

NWW to discuss
settlement proposal
(#119)
Prepare email for Nick
Woodfield use in prep
for call w/ clients re
settlement offer,
including breakdown of
award for each Plaintiff
(#121)
Prepare email for NWW
use in prep for call w/
clients re settlement
offer, including
breakdown of award for
each Plaintiff (#122)
Coordinate contact of
each client re status of
returned W-9 form and
assign task of
translation and contact
to same to R. Baca
(#128)
Coordinate contact of
each client re status of
returned W-9 form and
assign task of
translation and contact
of same to R. Baca
(#129)
Revised and Edited
agreement and
responded to email from
Opposing Counsel re
same (#224)
Revised and Edited
agreement and
responded to email from
Opposing Counsel re
same (#225)
Met with opt-ins re
settlement agreement,
answered questions and
secured client signatures
(#229)
Met with opt-ins re
7

0.50

$115.00

$57.50

0.50

$115.00

$57.50

0.50

$115.00

$57.50

0.50

$115.00

$57.50

0.40

$400.00

$160.00

0.40

$400.00

$160.00

1.20

$400.00

$480.00

1.20

$400.00

$480.00

Woodfield

3/17/11 Nick
Woodfield
3/17/11 Nick
Woodfield
3/17/11 Nick
Woodfield
3/17/11 Nick
Woodfield
3/18/11 Nick
Woodfield

3/18/11 Nick
Woodfield

settlement agreement,
answered questions and
secured client signatures
(#230)
Return travel to office
(#231)
Return travel to office
(#232)
Travel to College Park
to meet clients (#233)
Travel to College Park
to meet clients (#234)
Email to Opposing
counsel re signed
settlement and motion
for referral to magistrate
and proposed order
(#235)
Email to Opposing
counsel re signed
settlement agreement
and motion for referral
to magistrate and
proposed order (#236)

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

0.50

$400.00

$200.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

0.10

$400.00

$40.00

Plaintiffs’ attorneys are entitled to compensation for eight (8) entries of billable work, not
all sixteen (16) entries.

The Court therefore STRIKES the duplicate entries.

Plaintiffs’

requested attorneys’ fees are thus reduced by $1,241.00.
In reviewing the spreadsheet of billable hours the Court noted numerous entries regarding
the complaint.
Date
9/14/10

Employee ID
Jeremy
Schneider

9/14/10

Nick
Woodfield

Narrative
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to review 1st draft of
complaint for client
review (#28)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to review 1st draft of
8

Hours on Bill
0.30

0.30

Rate on Bill
$115.00

$400.00

Amount
$34.50

$120.00

9/21/10
9/21/10

Jeremy
Schneider
Jeremy
Schneider

9/21/10

Nick
Woodfield

9/28/10

Nick
Woodfield

9/28/10

Nick
Woodfield

9/29/10

Jeremy
Schneider

9/29/10

Nick
Woodfield
10/19/10 Jeremy
Schneider

10/19/10 Jeremy
Schneider

complaint for client
review (#150)
Continue drafting
complaint (#30)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status of
complaint drafting
(#32)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status of
complaint drafting
(#152)
Began revising and
editing complaint
(#154)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to review draft
complaint and
discovery drafting
schedule (#155)
Review changes to
complaint from Nick
Woodfield, meet w/
Nick Woodfield re
same (#33)
Completed drafting
complaint. (#157)
Prepare agenda and
review materials for
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status of
complaint d[r]afting
(#37)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status of
complaint d[r]afting
9

2.00

$115.00

$230.00

0.30

$115.00

$34.50

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

1.10

$400.00

$440.00

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

1.00

$115.00

$115.00

2.00

$400.00

$800.00

0.70

$115.00

$80.50

0.30

$115.00

$34.50

10/19/10 Nick
Woodfield

10/26/10 Jeremy
Schneider

10/26/10 Nick
Woodfield

11/10/10 Nick
Woodfield

11/16/10 Jeremy
Schneider

11/16/10 Nick
Woodfield

(#38)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status of
complaint d[r]afting
(#160)
Review items and
prepare agenda for
Updated: Scott
Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status [sic]
status of opt-in
meeting and
complaint drafting
(#39)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status [sic]
status of opt-in
meeting and
complaint drafting
(#162)
Final revisions and
edits to the complaint
and prepared same
for filing (#172)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status of
complaint review and
discovery drafting
(#44)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting –
to discuss status of
complaint review and
discovery drafting
(#173)

10

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

0.70

$115.00

$80.50

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

1.00

$400.00

$400.00

0.30

$115.00

$34.50

0.30

$400.00

$120.00

The complaint was filed the following day, November 17, 2010. The Court finds an
excessive number of “meetings” were held concerning drafting of the complaint. With his
wealth of experience Nick Woodfield should have accomplished this task in a shorter period of
time. The Court finds as reasonable 2.00 hours billed by Jeremy Schneider on September 21,
2010, 2.00 hours billed by Nick Woodfield on September 29, 2010 and the 1.00 hour billed by
Nick Woodfield on November 10, 2010, totaling $1,430.00.

The remaining times billed

regarding the complaint the Court finds unreasonable. Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees are
thus reduced by $1,574.00.
In reviewing the spreadsheet of billable hours the Court noted several entries regarding
the petition for fees.
Date
3/7/11

Employee ID
Jeremy
Schneider

3/15/11 Jeremy
Schneider

3/23/11 Jeremy
Schneider

4/6/11

Nick
Woodfield

4/22/11 Nick

Narrative
Meet w/ Nick Woodfield
to discuss mechanics of
drafting/filing petition for
fees and costs (#117)
Continue drafting
Plaintiffs’ Petition for
Fees and Costs, review
declarations for factual
portions of same, review
Johnson factors and begin
applying facts to
applicable case law and
factors (#124)
Finalize draft petition for
fees and costs, begin
reviewing NWW
declaration re same
(#131)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting – to
discuss status of fee
petition (#240)
Drafted fee petition
11

Hours on
Bill
0.50

Rate on
Bill
$115.00

Amount

2.80

$115.00

$322.00

1.60

$115.00

$184.00

0.20

$400.00

$80.00

1.90

$400.00

$760.00

$57.50

Woodfield

submission for court
(#211)

The Court finds as reasonable expenses the 2.80 hours billed by Jeremy Schneider on
March 15, 2011 and the 1.90 hours billed by Nick Woodfield on April 22, 2011. The Court
STRIKES the other three entries as unnecessary and/or unreasonable. Plaintiffs’ requested
attorneys’ fees are reduced by $321.50.
Finally, in reviewing the spreadsheet of billable hours, the Court noticed a significant
number of internal e-mails, meetings and teleconferences, in addition to tasks performed.
Considering the swift resolution of this case, the Court finds these meetings, e-mails or
teleconferences excessive. The Court STRIKES the following entries: (a) #35 claimed by
Jeremy Schneider on October 12, 2010 for $34.50, (b) #43 claimed by Jeremy Schneider on
October 18, 2010 for $34.50, (c) # 48 claimed by Phil Becnel on November 30, 2010 for $11.50,
(d) #79 claimed by Jeremy Schneider on December 14, 2010 for $23.00, (e) #80 claimed by
Jeremy Schneider on January 5, 2011 for $34.50, (f) #83 claimed by Phil Becnel on January 5,
2011 for $11.50, (g) #85 claimed by Jeremy Schneider on January 24, 2011 for $34.50, (h) # 97
claimed by Michael Vogelsang on August 12, 2010 for $34.50, (i) # 115 claimed by Jeremy
Schneider on March 3, 2011 for $34.50, (j) #134 claimed by Jeremy Schneider on March 31,
2011 for $34.50, (k) #140 claimed by Nick Woodfield on August 12, 2010 for $120.00, (l) # 142
claimed by Scott Oswald on August 19, 2010 for $120.00, (m) #143 claimed by Scott Oswald on
August 20, 2010 for $240.00, (n) #149 claimed by Scott Oswald on September 10, 2010 for
$240.00, (o) #158 claimed by Nick Woodfield on October 12, 2010 for $120.00, (p) #164
claimed by Nick Woodfield on November 8, 2010 for $120.00, (q) #175 claimed by Scott
Oswald on November 18, 2010 for $120.00, (r) #176 claimed by Nick Woodfield on November
30, 2010 for $120.00, (s) #185 claimed by Nick Woodfield on December 14, 2010 for $80.00, (t)
12

#190 claimed by Nick Woodfield on January 5, 2011 for $120.00, (u) #197 claimed by Nick
Woodfield on January 24, 2011 for $120.00, (v) #218 claimed by Nick Woodfield on March 3,
2011 for $120.00, (w) #228 claimed by Nick Woodfield on March 15, 2011 for $80.00 and (x)
#238 claimed by Nick Woodfield on March 21, 2011 for $80.00. The Court also STRIKES #120
claimed by Jeremy Schneider on March 11, 2011 for $115.00 regarding “Nick Woodfield
conference w/clients to discuss proposed settlement.” Nick Woodfield also billed for this
conference on March 11, 2011 at #226 (“telephone conference w/ clients to discuss proposed
settlement”). Jeremy Schneider does not indicate what he did during this teleconference and
therefore is not entitled to compensation. The Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees are reduced
by $2,202.50.
2.

The Novelty& Difficulty of the Questions

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants Sharon Abarjel and DaVinci’s Florist had incomplete
and disorganized payroll records. “Accordingly, The Employment Law Group, P.C., had to
create summaries from Plaintiffs’ paychecks and Abarjel and DaVinci’s incomplete records to
serve as the basis of their claims. Abarjel and DaVinci’s actions forced Plaintiffs to thoroughly
and completely analyze Abarjel and DaVinci’s records and to then create Excel spreadsheets to
produce accurate estimates for Plaintiffs’ undercompensated time.” Document No. 18 at 7.
In their Response Defendants claim this case involved neither novel nor difficult
questions. Defendants acknowledge that Plaintiffs had to spend some time calculating the “half
time premium” owed to each Plaintiff. Defendants contend these calculations could be easily
computed by a law clerk in a “few focused hours.”
With regard to how Defendants maintained their records, Defendants note they provided
Plaintiffs’ counsel with copies of the electronic records from the payroll company. Plaintiffs

13

were paid on a bi-weekly basis and not a weekly basis but that fact should not have impeded
Plaintiffs’ determination of the number of overtime hours worked. These electronic records were
produced very early during discovery.
Defendants assert, with these electronic records, Plaintiffs’ counsel could have estimated
the unpaid overtime wages and with such information, make an early settlement demand.
“Defendants’ counsel eagerly invited Plaintiffs to use these records to make a settlement demand
which would factor in any adjustment for the possible under-estimation of overtime hours
associated with the electronic records. Plaintiffs’ counsel rejected this invitation and refused to
make any settlement demand and instead insisted upon basing its settlement only upon original
records.” Document No. 21 at 3.
Defendants ultimately located the original payroll records and produced them to
Plaintiffs’ counsel. Once received Defendants assert Plaintiffs’ counsel engaged in “a prolonged and inefficient effort to translate the records into simple spreadsheets – – resulting in a
mere nominal change from calculations that could have been quickly and efficiently gleaned
from the electronic records but what resulted in a substantial and avoidable increase in Plaintiffs’
fee request.” Id. at 4. Plaintiffs filed a Reply but did not address this issue of the payroll
records.
The Court has carefully reviewed the spreadsheet of billable hours and finds the
following entries relevant to the dispute:
Date

Employee ID

12/13/10 Jeremy
Schneider

1

Narrative

Hours on Bill

Rate on Bill

Amount

Review client pay
information provided by
OC1, create spreadsheet
tracking overtime
compensation owed and

4.00

$115.00

$460.00

Opposing Counsel.

14

2/8/11
2/8/11

Jeremy
Schneider
Jeremy
Schneider

2/8/11

Jeremy
Schneider

2/11/11

Jeremy
Schneider

2/15/11

Jeremy
Schneider

2/28/11

Jeremy
Schneider

2/28/11

Jeremy
Schneider

estimate damage
accordingly, discuss
same w/ Nick Woodfield.
(#75)
Meeting with OC and
client here (#90)
Review payroll records
from Defendants and
compile and summarize
same for settlement
purposes (#91)
Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting – to
discuss status review of
employer’s wag[e]
information (#92)
Finalize damages
estimates, discuss same
w/ Nick Woodfield,
forward same to OC for
use in settlement
negotiations (#93)
Review client timesheets
and revise accordingly
per statutory limitations
on years of
damages(#94)
Draft email to Nick
Woodfield re changes to
damages estimates, set
up meeting to discuss
same and potential
meeting w/ OC re
damages calculations,
formulas in spreadsheets,
and settlement (#108)
Review email and
voicemail from OC re
damages estimates and
applicable statutory
provisions and their
influence of liquidated
damages, revise
spreadsheet to include
same (#109)
15

1.00

$115.00

$115.00

7.00

$115.00

$805.00

0.30

$115.00

$34.50

3.00

$115.00

$345.00

2.00

$115.00

$230.00

1.70

$115.00

$195.50

2.40

$115.00

$276.00

3/2/11

Jeremy
Schneider

3/2/11

Jeremy
Schneider

3/2/11

Jeremy
Schneider

3/2/11

Jeremy
Schneider

3/2/11

Jeremy
Schneider

Draft agenda for
Landaeta meeting w/
Scott Oswald and Nick
Woodfield to discuss
status of settlement
negotiations (#110)
Draft email
memorializing results of
Jeremy Schneider
meeting w/ OC re
damages estimates and
relay offer of settlement
in relation to the
estimated fees calculated
(#111)
Jeremy Schneider
Meeting with OC re
damages estimates and
formulas used in estimate
spreadsheet (#112)
Nick Woodfield/Jeremy
Schneider meeting to
discuss damages
estimates and result of
Jeremy Schneider
meeting w/ OC re
damages (#113)
Review client damages
based on questions from
OC and Defendant,
revise estimates
accordingly, discuss
same w/ Nick Woodfield
(#114)

0.60

$115.00

$69.00

1.50

$115.00

$172.50

1.00

$115.00

$115.00

0.50

$115.00

$57.50

3.00

$115.00

$345.00

The Court is not persuaded that Plaintiffs’ counsel needed the original payroll records to
“crunch numbers” in order to estimate the amount of unpaid overtime wages. The Court finds
23.30 hours expended by Jeremy Schneider alone on the payroll records is excessive. Plaintiffs’
counsel had more than adequate information when the firm received copies of the electronic
records in December 2010. Thus the Court hereby STRIKES the following entries; (a) 7.00
hours or $805.00 billed by Jeremy Schneider to “review payroll records from Defendants and
16

compile and summarize same for settlement purposes” on February 8, 2011; (b) .30 hours or
$34.50 billed by Jeremy Schneider for “Scott Oswald/Nick Woodfield/Jeremy Schneider
meeting – to discuss status review of employer’s wag[e] information on February 8, 2011; (c) .30
hours or $120.00 billed by Nick Woodfield for “Scott Oswald/Nick Woodfield/Jeremy Schneider
meeting – to discuss status review of employer’s wag[e] information” on February 8, 2011
[#207]; (d) .30 hours or $120.00 billed by Scott Oswald for “Scott Oswald/Nick
Woodfield/Jeremy Schneider meeting – to discuss status review of employer’s wag[e]
information” on February 8, 2011 [#208]; (e) 3.00 hours or $345.00 billed by Jeremy Schneider
for finalizing “damages estimates, discuss same w/ Nick Woodfield, forward same to OC for use
in settlement negotiations” on February 11, 2011; (f) 2.00 hours or $230.00 billed by Jeremy
Schneider for “review[ing] client timesheets and revis[ing] accordingly per statutory limitations
on years of damages” on February 15, 2011; (g) 1.70 hours or $195.50 billed by Jeremy
Schneider for “draft[ing] email to Nick Woodfield re changes to damages estimates, set up
meeting to discuss same and potential meeting w/ OC re damages calculations, formulas in
spreadsheets, and settlements” on February 28, 2011; (h) 2.40 hours or $276.00 billed by Jeremy
Schneider for “review[ing] email and voicemail from OC re damages estimates and applicable
statutory provisions and their influence of liquidated damages, revise spreadsheet to include
same” on February 28, 2011; (i) .60 hours or $69.00 billed by Jeremy Schneider for “draft[ing]
agenda for Landaeta meeting w/ Scott Oswald and Nick Woodfield to discuss status of
settlement negotiations” on March 2, 2011; and (j) 1.50 hours or $172.50 billed by Jeremy
Schneider for “draft[ing] email memorializing results of Jeremy Schneider meeting w/ OC re
damages estimates and relay offer of settlement in relation to the estimated fee calculated” on
March 2, 2011. The Court however approves three other entries billed by Jeremy Schneider for

17

work performed on March 2, 2011. Based on the above, Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees are
reduced by $2,367.50.
3.

The Level of Skill Required to Perform the Legal Service Properly

Plaintiffs contend their counsel executed their case with organized efficiency. Plaintiffs
note their counsel specializes in employment law and related matters. “The Employment Law
Group, P.C.’s diligence, strategic discovery of materials, and information relevant to Plaintiffs’
claims and damages, and its knowledge of employment law trial practice made The Employment
Law Group, P.C. uniquely situated to provide Plaintiffs with the best possible representation.”
Document No. 18 at 7.
Defendants claim, despite the experience and skill of Plaintiffs’ counsel, their work in
this case was inefficient. “Plaintiffs’ counsel (with its self admitted robust FLSA practice)
should have (1) quickly recognized that this was a straight forward overtime claim without the
possibility of exemption during the initial intake and investigation period; (2) utilized past
research and a previously drafted FLSA Complaint to aid in the expediency of drafting the
Complaint; and (3) utilized previously crafted excel formulas and spreadsheets to calculate
damages.” Document No. 21 at 4.
In reviewing the spreadsheet of billable hours, the Court notes the earliest activity in this
litigation occurred on August 12, 2010 when there was a teleconference involving Scott Oswald,
Nick Woodfield and paralegal/law student Michael Vogelsang “to discuss case investigation/
evaluation protocol.” After Michael Vogelsang performed certain tasks on August 13, 16 and
17, 2010, it is surprising that Michael Vogelsang was tasked with researching FLSA and
Maryland wage exceptions and Maryland human rights act, researching case law regarding
undocumented plaintiff rights and drafting an opinion letter.

18

The facts in this case were

straightforward. Mr. Oswald and Mr. Woodfield are well-versed in FLSA and Maryland wage
exceptions and with the law regarding undocumented plaintiffs’ rights.

Thus tasking the

paralegal/law student to spend 5.80 hours researching these areas of law and an additional 6.30
hours drafting an opinion letter was not very efficient considering the straightforward nature of
the dispute in this case. The Court recognizes that the paralegal/law student would need to check
for recent opinions on topics germane to this litigation. Thus the .70 hours or $80.50 to “review
and finalize opinion letter” the Court will consider as time spent researching for recent opinions.
The Court however STRIKES (a) 3.10 hours or $356.50 billed by Michael Vogelsang for
“research[ing] FLSA and MD wage exceptions, MD human rights act” on August 18, 2010
[#102]; (b) 2.70 hours or $310.50 billed by Michael Vogelsang for “research[ing] case law
regarding undocument[ed] plaintiff rights” on August 19, 2010 [#104]; (c) 6.30 hours or $724.50
billed by Michael Vogelsang for “draft[ing] opinion letter” on August 20, 2010 [#105]; and (d)
2.50 hours or $1,000.00 billed by Scott Oswald for “review[ing] and edit[ing] opinion letter” on
August 23, 2010 [#146]. Plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees are reduced by $2,391.50.
4.

The Preclusion of Employment by the Attorney Due to Acceptance of the Case

The attorneys representing Plaintiffs have a robust employment law practice. The firm
routinely declines 150 to 200 offers of employment each week. By accepting Plaintiffs’ case, the
firm has forgone other work where the firm would have been able to charge the full hourly rates
of its employees. In their Response Defendants argue any preclusion of additional work “falls
squarely on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s inefficiency and cannot give a basis for the fee award Plaintiffs’
counsel requests.” Document No. 21 at 5.
Because Defendants expressed interest in an early settlement of this litigation, the Court
declines to consider this factor in favor of Plaintiffs.

19

5.

The customary fee

There is no dispute about the hourly rates of Plaintiffs’ counsel. This matter has been
addressed in detail supra.
6.

Whether the Fee is Fixed or Contingent

The Employment Law Group, P.C. accepted Plaintiffs’ claims on a contingency fee basis,
meaning the firm paid all costs up front. Although acknowledging this fact, Defendants assert
the nature of the case is one where the likelihood of success was virtually guaranteed,
considering the experience of Plaintiffs’ counsel. “This fact must mitigate any consideration this
Court affords Plaintiffs’ counsel’s argument as to any risk undertaken.” Document No. 21 at 5.
Contingency cases are by nature risky.

However the nature of this particular litigation,

especially in light of Defendants’ early interest in resolving this case, mitigate against weighing
this factor heavily in favor of Plaintiffs for determining the reasonableness of the requested
attorneys’ fees.
7.

The Time Limitations Imposed by the Client or the Circumstances

Both sides acknowledge the case was resolved quickly. Defendants assert the case could
have been resolved sooner if Plaintiffs’ counsel had not “engaged in endeavors unrelated to
achieving an expedited settlement, thus causing the instant disputed fee petition.” Document No.
21 at 6.

The Court has already addressed this issue by reducing the requested award of

attorneys’ fees for hours claimed reviewing payroll records, creating spreadsheets, etc.
8.

The Amount Involved and the Results Obtained

The Court has reviewed the terms of the confidential settlement in camera. Plaintiffs
were successful in this matter.

20

9.

The Experience, Reputation and Ability of the Attorneys

There is no dispute about Scott Oswald’s and Nick Woodfield’s significant experience in
employment law, excellent reputations and well-known abilities. Defendants note however that
they at all times conceded liability to Plaintiffs’ case. “To this end, Defendants filed no motions
and raised no defenses. As a result, even though Plaintiffs’ attorneys are excellent, this was not a
matter in which they flexed their legal or intellectual muscle.” Document No. 21 at 6. Plaintiffs
challenge Defendants’ assertion that they conceded liability at all times. Plaintiffs note, in
Defendants’ Answer, they denied virtually every substantive allegation in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
“Moreover, aside from denying liability, Defendants also raised three defenses and prayed for
the Court’s relief. . . This pleading is not the product of a litigant who has conceded liability[.]”
Document No. 22 at 2.
The Court acknowledges the prudent action by Plaintiffs’ counsel, to prepare for potential
adverse developments in the case even though the opposing counsel indicated his clients’
willingness to settle. A case is not settled until the settlement agreement has been signed.
10.

The “Undesirability" of the Case

The Court would characterize as low the “undesirability” of the case.
11.

The Nature and Length of the Professional Relationship with the Clients

The attorneys for Plaintiffs assert, due to the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims (non-payment of
overtime wages), this case does not lend itself to continuous or a long-term attorney-client
relationship.

Contrarily, Defendants note, due to the quick and successful resolution of

Plaintiffs’ claims, Plaintiffs’ attorneys “will surely beget future engagements from Plaintiffs’
family and friends.” Document No. 21 at 7. Although this type of dispute does not foster a long-

21

term attorney-client relationship, the Court agrees with Defendants that there are some potential
lasting benefits from the representation.
12.

Awards in Similar Cases

Although this Court is aware of awards in similar non-payment of overtime wages cases,
in this case the Court has determined the reasonableness of the award based on when the case
was resolved, i.e., not only before any dispositive motions were filed, but also well before
discovery closed.
B.

Costs
In determining compensable costs this Court begins with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

54(d)(1) which states, “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise,
costs—other than attorney’s fees—should be allowed to the prevailing party.” The Court must
also consider 28 U.S.C. § 1924 which states,
Before any bill of costs is taxed, the party claiming any item of
cost or disbursement shall attach thereto an affidavit, made by
himself or by his duly authorized attorney or agent having
knowledge of the facts, that such item is correct and has been
necessarily incurred in the case and that the services for which fees
have been charged were actually and necessarily performed.
Finally although not mandatory, this Court will use as a guide the Guideline for Bills of Costs (D.
Md. 2010) (“Guideline”).
At the outset the Court notes no affidavit accompanies the spreadsheet of costs.
Moreover Plaintiffs have failed to submit itemized receipts of the costs claimed.
Plaintiffs are entitled to a fee in the amount of $350.00, the fee for filing the original
Complaint. Defendants do not contest this fee.
Defendants contend Plaintiffs are entitled to $50.00 each for service of process on the
Defendants. According to the spreadsheet of billable hours Defendant Sharon Abarjel was
22

served on December 2, 2010 by Phil Becnel (#65). Since Sharon Abarjel is also the owner and
president of Da Vinci’s Florist LLC, Defendant Da Vinci’s Florist was presumably
simultaneously served. In reviewing the spreadsheet of costs there is not an entry reflecting
service occurred on December 2, 2010. The Court will award Plaintiffs $100.00 for service of
process.
As outlined in the Guideline costs associated with investigative services are nontaxable.
The fifteen (15) entries for private investigator therefore are not compensable. Likewise costs
associated with computerized legal research are not taxable in this Court. Plaintiffs list two
entries for computerized legal research. The claimed telephone/internet conference calls are not
recoverable. Finally the November 22, 2010 “food and drinks during clients’ meeting” is not
taxable in this Court.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Petition for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
will be granted in part and denied in part. An Order will be entered separately.

October 21, 2011

/s/
_____________________________________________
WILLIAM CONNELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23