Lee v. City of Syracuse, et al

Filing 260

ORDER: Plaintiff is awarded additional attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of $39,620.54; The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a supplemental judgment in favor of the plaintiff Katherine J. Lee and against the defendant Cit y of Syracuse in the amount of $39,620.54; Defendant's request to cancel the supersedeas bond issued by the Hanover Insurance Company (BJS-8807125) is GRANTED; and The March 19, 2012, Order is VACATED. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 7/12/2012. (see)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------KATHERINE J. LEE,
Plaintiff,
vs.

5:03-CV-1329; 5:06-CV-949

CITY OF SYRACUSE,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

BOSMAN LAW OFFICE
Attorneys for Plaintiff
6599 Martin Street
Rome, NY 13440

A.J. BOSMAN, ESQ.

CORPORATION COUNSEL
CITY OF SYRACUSE
Attorneys for Defendant
233 East Washington Street
Room 301 City Hall
Syracuse, NY 13202

MARY ANNE DOHERTY, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD
United States District Judge
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
In a March 19, 2012, Order, plaintiff was stayed from all efforts to enforce the
judgment entered in this action on July 16, 2010. Dkt. No. 247. This order also directed that
if defendant did not file a writ of certiorari, or if such a writ was denied, plaintiff was permitted
to file an application for reasonable attorneys' fees and costs related to defendant's appeal to

the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for post-judgment interest.
On April 30, 2012, the United States Supreme Court denied defendant's petition for a
writ of certiorari. City of Syracuse v. Lee, 132 S. Ct. 2113 (2012). On May 3, 2012,
defendant issued two checks to cover the face amount of the judgment ($602,951.61).
On May 21, 2012, plaintiff filed an application for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 2000e-5(k). Dkt. No. 255. Defendant has opposed. Dkt. No. 258.
Also, defendant seeks an order canceling the supersedeas bond that had been secured in
the amount of the judgment entered on July 16, 2010. Dkt. No. 256. Plaintiff opposes this
request. Dkt. No. 257. Both applications were considered on submission without oral
argument.
II. STANDARD
Costs other than attorneys' fees "should be allowed to the prevailing party." Fed. R.
Civ. P. 54(d). Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1988 and 2000e-5(k), attorneys' fees may be
awarded to a prevailing party in, inter alia, civil rights and Title VII litigation as part of the
costs imposed.
Attorneys' fees are awarded by determining a presumptively reasonable fee, reached
by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of reasonably expended hours. See
Simmons v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170, 174 (2d Cir. 2009). The reasonable hourly
rate should be "'what a reasonable, paying client would be willing to pay' given that such a
party wishes 'to spend the minimum necessary to litigate the case effectively.'" Id. (quoting
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 493 F.3d 110, 112,
118 (2d Cir. 2007), amended on other grounds by 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008)). This
Circuit's "forum rule" generally requires use of "the hourly rates employed in the district in
-2-

which the reviewing court sits in calculating the presumptively reasonable fee." Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Until recently, the applicable rate for an experienced attorney in the Northern District
has been $210 per hour. See Picinich v. United Parcel Serv., No. 5:01-CV-1868, 2008 WL
1766746, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008) (McCurn, S.J.). However, the prevailing hourly rate
that a reasonable, paying client would be willing to pay in this district "is now higher than
$210." Luessenhop v. Clinton County, 558 F. Supp. 2d 247, 266 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (Treece,
M.J.) (applying an hourly rate of $235). Therefore, a reasonable rate of $225 per hour for an
experienced attorney will be applied to reflect this gradual upward adjustment. Additionally, it
is customary in this district to allow only one-half the hourly rate for travel time. The
prevailing hourly rate for a paralegal is $80. Picinich, 2008 WL 1766746, at *2.
Unnecessary and excessive hours must be eliminated, and attorneys' fees must be
limited to those claims in which the plaintiff achieved success. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 430, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1938 (1983); Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., 537
F.3d 132, 152 (2d Cir. 2008).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees of $57,990.00 plus costs of $4084.74, for the total sum
of $62,074.74. This is based on 159.55 hours of legal services at $250 per hour, 6 hours of
travel at $125 per hour, and 173.8 hours of paralegal services at $100 per hour, for a total of
339.35 hours. Defendant asserts that plaintiff is seeking fees at an unreasonable rate, for
excessive hours and duplicative services, and provides vague explanations of the services
rendered. Defendant also requests a reduction based upon plaintiff's limited success on
appeal.
-3-

The submissions have been reviewed, and the above standards have been
applied. The Second Circuit affirmed the jury verdict and damages award in favor of plaintiff
and against defendant. Plaintiff is thus a "prevailing party." However, her cross-appeal was
unsuccessful. Plaintiff's submissions do not distinguish between the legal work performed in
opposition to defendant's appeal and in support of her cross-appeal. Therefore, her
attorney's and paralegal's hours must be reduced by a reasonable estimate (30%) to reflect
the legal work on the cross-appeal. The travel hours claimed are appropriate, and the costs
are reasonable. As a result, the following reasonable attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, travel,
and costs for the legal services related to the defendant's appeal are awarded:
Attorneys' fees:

111.68 hours X

$225

Travel:

6.0 hours

$112.50 =

$675.00

Paralegal fees:

121.66 hours X

$80

=

$9732.80

Costs:

=

$4084.74

Total:

=

$39,620.54

X

=

$25,128.00

As noted, defendant has issued two checks in the total amount of $602,951.61—
$400,000.00 to plaintiff Katherine Lee and $202,951.61 to plaintiff's counsel.1 This amount
equals the total secured by the supersedeas bond that defendant established through the
Hanover Insurance Company on August 3, 2010.2 However, these payments are not a full

1

Although the checks are dated March 2, 2012, it is undisputed that they were not released to
plaintiff's counsel until May 3, 2012.
2
Defendant seeks an order canceling two bonds— one for $202,951.61 and the other for
$400,000.00. See Dkt. No. 256. However, only one bond was filed in this case, reflecting a total am ount of
$602,951.61. See Dkt. No. 226 (Bond No. BJS-8807125). In fact, defendant only referenced one bond in its
(continued...)

-4-

satisfaction of the judgment entered on July 16, 2010. Post-judgment interest at the statutory
rate on the total amount of the judgment ($602,951.61) from July 16, 2010, to May 3, 2012,
is still owed to plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961(a).
Therefore, it is
ORDERED that
1. Plaintiff is awarded additional attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of
$39,620.54;
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter a supplemental judgment in favor of
the plaintiff Katherine J. Lee and against the defendant City of Syracuse in the amount of
$39,620.54;
3. Defendant's request to cancel the supersedeas bond issued by the Hanover
Insurance Company (BJS-8807125) is GRANTED; and
4. The March 19, 2012, Order is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2012
Utica, New York.

2

(...continued)
March 7, 2012, m otion for a tem porary restraining order. See Dkt. No. 241-2 (referencing Bond No. BJS8807125).
-5-