Snyder et al v. Pace Plumbing & Heating, Inc. et al
Filing
13
SUMMARY ORDER - that plaintiffs' 12 Motion for Attorney Fees pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D), in the amount of $8,820 (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 11/23/2015. (jel, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
ROBERT SNYDER, as Trustee
of the Plumbers & Steamfitters
Local No. 7 Pension, Welfare,
and Annuity Funds, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
1:15-cv-173
(GLS)
v.
PACE PLUMBING & HEATING,
INC. et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________
SUMMARY ORDER
Before the court is plaintiffs’1 motion for attorneys’ fees. (Dkt. No.
12.) Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendants Pace Plumbing &
Heating, Inc. and Michael C. Pachucki alleging delinquent contributions to
employee benefit funds in violation of the collective bargaining agreement
between the parties and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
1
Plaintiffs are Robert Snyder, Daniel Keating, Peter Campito, Timothy J. Carter, Paul
R. Fredericks, and Edward Nadeau, as Trustees of the Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 7
Pension, Welfare, and Annuity Funds; Edward Nadeau, as Trustee of the Plumbers &
Steamfitters Local No. 7 Betterment and Apprentice Training Funds and the Elaqua-Walsh
Scholarship Fund, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund; and United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada Local No. 7. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.)
(ERISA).2 (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After defendants failed to appear, (Dkt.
No. 6), and the Clerk made an entry of default, (Dkt. No. 8), the court
granted plaintiffs’ motion for a default judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 11.)
Plaintiffs now seek attorneys’ fees to compensate their efforts to recover
the delinquent contributions. (Dkt. No. 12.)
Plaintiffs request $8,820 in attorneys’ fees for forty-two hours of work
by their counsel at a rate of $210 per hour. (Id., Attach. 2 at 3.) Plaintiffs’
counsel submitted that he has been a licensed attorney for over thirty-five
years and has represented individuals, businesses, and employee plans in
civil litigation and transactional matters. (Id., Attach. 1 at 3-4.) He also
provided a detailed billing record accounting for the time spent on this
case. (Id. at 7-12.)
In ERISA contribution cases, fiduciaries are statutorily entitled to
recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D). To
set a reasonable hourly rate, courts consider “the rate a paying client
would be willing to pay” by “bear[ing] in mind all of the case-specific
variables.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cty. of
Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2008). Plaintiffs request the prevailing
2
See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 - 1461.
2
hourly rate courts in the Northern District of New York have awarded
experienced counsel in similar ERISA cases to recover unpaid
contributions. See Upstate N.Y. Eng’rs Health Fund v. FMC Demolition,
Inc., No. 5:13-cv-1307, 2015 WL 401113, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2015)
(awarding a $210 hourly fee for case entered on default judgment); see
also Upstate N.Y. Eng’rs Health Fund v. Ransom, No. 5:13-cv-01434, 2015
WL 145441, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2015) (same). The court finds that a
$210 hourly rate is reasonable, and that forty-two hours expended on the
matter is similarly reasonable. Therefore, plaintiffs are entitled to
reasonable attorneys’ fees of $210 multiplied by forty-two hours, or $8,820.
See Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 190.
Accordingly, it is hereby,
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to
ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D), in the amount of $8,820 (Dkt. No. 12) is
GRANTED, and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Summary Order to
the parties.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 23, 2015
Albany, New York
4
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?