The Annuity, Welfare and Apprenticeship Skill Improvement & Safety Funds of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 15, 15A, 15C & 15D, AFL-CIO et al v. Coastal Environmental Group Inc.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: On March 16, 2021, Magistrate Judge Sanket J. Bulsara issued a report and recommendation (the "R&R") 23 which recommends that Plaintiffs' renewed request for attorney's fees 22 be gran ted, in part. Specifically, that Plaintiff be awarded $2,035.00 in attorney's fees. No objections to the R&R have been filed. Accordingly, having reviewed the R&R for clear error and, finding none, the Court hereby ADOPTS the R&R in its en tirety as the opinion of this Court. As recommended by Judge Bulsara, Plaintiffs are awarded $2,035.00 in attorney's fees. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter judgment and close the case. Ordered by Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall on 3/31/2021. (Williams, Erica)
Case 1:18-cv-05791-LDH-SJB Document 23 Filed 03/16/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 455
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
THE ANNUITY, WELFARE AND APPRENTICESHIP
SKILL IMPROVEMENT & SAFETY FUNDS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL 15, 15A, 15C & 15D, AFL-CIO,
by their Trustees James T. Callahan, Thomas A.
Callahan, Michael Salgo and Denise M. Richardson,
CENTRAL PENSION FUND OF THE INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
by its Chief Executive Officer Michael A. Crabtree,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
LOCAL 15, 15A, 15C & 15D, AFL-CIO,
by its President & Business Manager Thomas A.
COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP INC.,
BULSARA, United States Magistrate Judge:
The Annuity, Welfare and Apprenticeship Skill Improvement & Safety Funds of
the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 15, 15A, 15C & 15D, AFL-CIO,
Central Pension Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers, and
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 15, 15A, 15C & 15D, AFL-CIO
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) commenced this action on October 17, 2018 against Coastal
Environmental Group Inc. (“Coastal Environmental”), alleging violations of the
Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et
seq., and section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, et
seq., and seeking to recover benefit contributions under two collective-bargaining
agreements, interest, liquidated damages, and attorney’s fees and costs. Annuity,
Case 1:18-cv-05791-LDH-SJB Document 23 Filed 03/16/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 456
Welfare & Apprenticeship Skill Improvement & Safety Funds of the Int’l Union of
Operating Eng’rs, Loc. 15, 15A, 15C & 15D v. Coastal Env’t Grp. Inc., No. 18-CV-5791,
2019 WL 5693916, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2019), report and recommendation
adopted, Order (Mar. 31, 2020). Plaintiffs are represented by attorney James M.
Steinberg (“Steinberg”). Id. at *10.
Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment against Coastal Environmental and
sought, among other things, an award of attorney’s fees. See id at *3. On August 30,
2019, this Court recommended that the motion for default judgment be granted in part
and denied in part. Id. at *13. In particular, the Court recommended Steinberg submit
contemporaneous billing records for the Court’s review in light of certain deficiencies in
his attorney’s fee application. See id. at *11. This recommendation was adopted on
March 31, 2020 by the Honorable LaShann DeArcy Hall. (Order dated Mar. 31, 2020).
Judge DeArcy Hall directed Plaintiffs “to submit contemporaneous billing records
within thirty (30) days” of March 31, 2020, “so the Court can calculate attorney’s fees.”
(Id.). On April 21, 2020, Plaintiffs submitted a declaration by Steinberg, which included
his original, contemporaneous billing records. (Decl. of James M. Steinberg in Supp. of
Calculation of Att’y’s Fees (“Steinberg Decl.”), Dkt. No. 22). On November 9, 2020,
Judge DeArcy Hall referred the renewed request for attorney’s fees to the undersigned
for a report and recommendation. (Order dated Nov. 9, 2020). For the reasons
outlined below, the Court respectfully recommends that the renewed request be granted
in part and Plaintiffs be awarded $2,035.00 in attorney’s fees.
ERISA entitles prevailing plaintiffs to “reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” in
actions to recover delinquent ERISA contributions. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D); accord
Coastal Env’t, 2019 WL 5693916, at *10. When assessing whether legal fees are
Case 1:18-cv-05791-LDH-SJB Document 23 Filed 03/16/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 457
reasonable, the Court determines the “presumptively reasonable fee” for an attorney’s
services. See Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany,
522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2008). To calculate this fee, a court must first determine a
reasonable hourly rate for the legal services performed, id. at 189–90, and then
determine the reasonableness of the hours expended by counsel, LaBarbera v. Empire
State Trucking, Inc., No. 07-CV-669, 2008 WL 746490, at *4–5 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26,
2007), report and recommendation adopted, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21770 (Mar. 17,
In their original motion for default judgment, Plaintiffs sought $2,775.00 in
attorney’s fees for 7.5 hours of work done by Steinberg and compensated at a rate of
$370 per hour. Coastal Env’t, 2019 WL 5693916, at *10. The Court found Steinberg’s
hourly rate—$370—to be reasonable. Id. And with respect to 7.5 hours, the Court noted
that other “[c]ourts have found similar numbers of hours reasonable in ERISA default
judgment cases.” Id. at *11. However, the Court observed that the billing records
submitted with the motion were insufficient: in particular, the Court noted that
Steinberg submitted reconstructed billing records which indicated that Steinberg “block
billed” the bulk of his time. Id. The Court also observed that Steinberg submitted
nearly identical reconstructed records in another case. Id. As a result, the Court
recommended that Steinberg submit his contemporaneous billing records for the
Court’s review, and the recommendation was adopted by the District Judge. Id.; (Order
dated Mar. 31, 2020). Steinberg submitted contemporaneous billing records on April
21, 2020. (Steinberg Decl.). The Court finds that Steinberg’s contemporaneous billing
records lack sufficient information for the Court to assess their reasonableness and, as a
result, recommends a reduction of hours.
Case 1:18-cv-05791-LDH-SJB Document 23 Filed 03/16/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 458
“Block billing” is the practice of “grouping multiple tasks into a single billing
entry.” Charles v. City of New York, No. 13-CV-3547, 2014 WL 4384155, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 4, 2014). “Although there is no per se rule against block billing, to justify an award
of attorneys’ fees, counsel must provide enough information for the Court to assess the
reasonableness of the hours worked on each discrete project.” Id. (citation omitted);
accord Coastal Env’t, 2019 WL 5693916, at *11. Steinberg’s contemporaneous billing
records, like his originally submitted reconstructed records, indicate that he engaged in
block billing. In fact, Steinberg’s contemporaneous billing records are less detailed than
the reconstructed ones. Steinberg’s reconstructed records contained two entries, one on
October 18, 2018 for 1.5 hours (“Drafted, revised and finalized Summons and Complaint
for delinquent contributions; Prepared civil cover sheet to be filed with court”) and
another on November 29, 2018 for 6.0 hours (“Drafted, revised and finalized default
judgment motion papers including memorandum of law and supporting affidavits”).
(Hours Expended by Counsel, attached as Ex. L to Aff. of James M. Steinberg in Supp. of
Pls.’ Mot. for Default J. dated Dec. 3, 2018, Dkt. No. 13). His contemporaneous records
also include two entries. But in contrast, the one on October 171 for 1.5 hours contains
the summary description “Prepared summons and complaint to compel payment of
audit deficiency” and the one on November 29 for 6.0 hours states only “Prepared
default J motion papers.” (Time Sheet, attached as Ex. A to Steinberg Decl., Dkt. No.
22). The Court must rely on the contemporaneous, not reconstituted bills. And the
Court finds the second entry of the contemporaneous bills, which documents six hours
spent preparing the default judgment motion—a motion that consisted of discrete
It appears that the October 18, 2018 date on the reconstructed records was an
Case 1:18-cv-05791-LDH-SJB Document 23 Filed 03/16/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 459
subparts, including a memorandum of law and four affidavits, all of which were filed on
ECF and served—an improper summary and block billing of several separate tasks
which were not disaggregated. See, e.g., Trs. of Empire State Carpenters Annuity,
Apprenticeship, Lab.-Mgmt. Coop., Pension &Welfare Funds v. Penco United LLC, No.
13-CV-4745, 2015 WL 1650960, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2015) (finding entry of 5.8
hours for “court appearance; review case file; Travel to/from Court; Attend initial
conference” unreasonable block billing); E.S. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Sch. Dist., 796 F.
Supp. 2d 421, 432–33 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (finding single entry of five hours for “Finalize
Motion for SJ; scan; e-mail to defense; bind; prepare Proof of Service and letter to Court
and Rushfield” constituted improper block billing), aff’d, 487 F. App’x 619 (2d Cir.
2012). As a result, the Court respectfully recommends a reduction in this entry by onethird, to four hours. See, e.g., Penco United LLC, 2015 WL 1650960, at *5–7 (reducing
hours of attorney who block billed time by 30 percent when calculating attorney’s fee);
E.S., 796 F. Supp. 2d at 432–33 (same); Charles, 2014 WL 4384155, at *6 (reducing
block-billed entries by 30 percent in calculating fee award). This constitutes a total
attorney’s fee award of 5.5 hours (4 hours plus 1.5 hours), compensated at $370 per
hour, totaling $2,035.00.
For these reasons, the Court respectfully recommends Plaintiffs be awarded
$2,035.00 in attorney’s fees. Any objections to the Report and Recommendation must
be filed with the Clerk of the Court within 14 days of receipt of this report. Failure to file
objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal any judgment or order
entered by the District Court in reliance on this Report and Recommendation. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601,
604 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate [judge’s] report operates
Case 1:18-cv-05791-LDH-SJB Document 23 Filed 03/16/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 460
as a waiver of any further judicial review of the magistrate [judge’s] decision.”).
Plaintiffs are directed to serve a copy of this Report and Recommendation on Coastal
Environmental and file proof of service on the docket.
/s/ Sanket J. Bulsara March 16, 2021
SANKET J. BULSARA
United States Magistrate Judge
Brooklyn, New York
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?