Gayle v. Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc. et al
Filing
225
MEMORANDUM & ORDER re 221 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiffs' motion for additional attorneys' fees and costs related to post-judgment proceedings and the appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is GRANTED IN PART. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the court AWARDS to Plaintiffs $41,429.17 in post-judgment attorneys' fees and costs. So Ordered by Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis on 4/06/2015. (fwd'd for jgm) (Lee, Tiffeny)
D/F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
CLAUDIA GAYLE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
07-CV-4672 (NGG) (MDG)
-againstHARRY'S NURSES REGISTRY, INC. and
HARRY DORVILIER a/k/a HARRY
DORVILIEN,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------)(
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, United States District Judge.
This Order is yet another chapter in a long-running litigation brought by Plaintiffs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq. The court assumes familiarity
with the underlying facts, but provides a brief summary of the litigation's lengthy procedural
history. For the reasons discussed below, the court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and AWARDS to Plaintiffs $41,429.17 in post-judgment attorneys' fees and
costs.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Claudia Gayle filed the original Complaint in this action on November 7, 2007.
(Comp!. (Dkt. 1).) Additional Plaintiffs subsequently filed consents to become part of the action.
On March 1, 2012, the court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs as to liability (see
Mar. l, 2012, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 162)), and on September 18, 2012, the court granted
summary judgment to Plaintiffs as to damages (see Sept. 18, 2012, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 179)).
On September 30, 2013, the court amended its summary judgment decision to provide additional
damages to certain Plaintiff class members, and also granted Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys'
fees and costs. (See Sept. 30, 2013, Mem. & Order (Dkt. 211).) The court subsequently entered
an amended judgment reflecting the revised damages awards, as well as a total of $127,754.17 in
attorneys' fees and $2,460.29 in costs. (Am. J. (Dkt. 214).)
Defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (See Am. Not.
of Appeal (Dkt. 213); First Am. Not. of Appeal of Supplementary J. (Dkt. 215).) In a summary
order dated December 8, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the courts' various decisions, and a
mandate issued on January 5, 2015. (Mandate (Dkt. 217).) Following the issuance of the
mandate, counsel informed the court that the parties have been unable to resolve Plaintiffs'
demand for post-judgment attorneys' fees under the FLSA. (Joint Ltr. Mot. for Leave to File
Mot. for Attys.' Fees (Dkt. 218).) During a pre-motion conference, the court entered a briefing
schedule for Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees. (See Feb. 23, 2015, Min. Entry.) On
March 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the fully-briefed motion, consisting ofa Notice of Motion
(Dkt. 221); a Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Post-Judgment Attorney's Fees and
Costs ("Bernstein Deel.") (Dkt. 222); an Affirmation in Opposition to the Motion ("Irizarry
Aff.") (Dkt. 223); and a Reply Declaration in Further Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for PostJudgment Attorney's Fees and Costs ("Bernstein Reply Deel.") (Dkt. 224).
II.
DISCUSSION
The parties appear to agree that Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable post-judgment
attorneys' fees under the FLSA, and that the district court has the authority to award postjudgment attorneys' fees. See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (authorizing attorneys' fees and costs to
prevailing plaintiff in FLSA action); Young v. Cooper Cameron Corp., 586 F.3d 201, 208
(2d Cir. 2009) (holding that an FLSA plaintiff's "entitlement to fees and costs extends to [an]
appeal"). In an FLSA case, an application for attorneys' fees following affirmance of a district
court judgment should be made to the district court in the first instance. See Young, 5 86 F .3d
2
at 208 ("We therefore remand this [FLSA] matter to the district court for the proper
determination of appellate fees and costs owed to [plaintiff]."); cf. Cush-Crawford v. Ad chem
Coro., 234 F. Supp. 2d 207, 209-10 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) ("Because the award of attorneys' fees may
involve extensive factfinding and a large degree of discretion, a district court generally decides
this issue in the first instance.").
Accordingly, the court now turns to the proper supplemental award in this case, on which
the parties disagree. Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving the reasonableness of the fees sought.
See Savoie v. Merchs. Bank, 166 F.3d 456, 463 (2d Cir. 1999). The standard method for
determining the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees is "the number of hours reasonably
expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate," or a "presumptively
reasonable fee." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens
Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 188-90 (2d Cir. 2008)(amended op.); see
also Perdue v. Kenny A. ex. rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (discussing lodestar methodology).
In reviewing a fee application, the district court must examine the particular hours expended by
counsel with a view to the value of the work product to the client's case. See Lunday v. City of
Albany. 42 F.3d 131, 133 (2d Cir. 1994) (per curiam). If any expenditure of time was
unreasonable, the court should exclude these hours from the calculation. See Hensley, 461 U.S.
at 434; Lunday. 42 F.3d at 133. The court should thus exclude "excessive, redundant or
otherwise unnecessary hours, as well as hours dedicated to severable unsuccessful claims."
Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422, 425 (2d Cir. 1999) (amended op.). A party seeking
attorneys' fees bears the burden of supporting its claim of hours expended by accurate, detailed,
and contemporaneous time records. N.Y. State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711
F.2d 1136, 1147-48 (2d Cir. 1983).
3
Including fees an
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?