Cao et al v. East Market Restaurant, Inc. et al
Filing
96
OPINION AND ORDER re: 86 MOTION for Attorney Fees . filed by Sky Wong, Sai Qin Chen, Xiu Rong Tong, Zeng Can Lu, Ai Qin Guo, Wai Fong Cheong, Xiu Hua Xu. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs are awarded $143,141.50 in attorneys' fees and $9,315.50 in out-of-pocket costs incurred in this action. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 8/20/2018) (ne)
USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
. ELECTRON!.CALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------x
✓
DOC'.#:
L_DAI'E.~~ED:
SAI QIN CHEN, WAI FONG CHEONG,
AI QIN GUO, ZENG CAN LU, XIU
RONG TONG, SKY WONG, and XIU
HUA XU,
Plaintiffs,
13 Civ. 3902
-against-
J
(HBP)
OPINION
AND ORDER
EAST MARKET RESTAURANT, INC.,
d/b/a "East Market Restaurant,"
JIMMY CHENG, GUO PING ZHENG,
ZHENG JIANG ZHENG, and ZHENG
XIANG ZHENG
Defendants.
-----------------------------------x
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
I.
Introduction
Plaintiffs commenced this action pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
§§
201 e t ~ - , and
the New York Labor Law (the "NYLL") to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and penalties
for failure to provide wage statements and notices under the
NYLL.
After succeeding on these claims at trial, plaintiffs now
move for attorneys' fees and costs
(Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law
in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Costs (Docket Item ("D.I.")
86)
("Pl. Memo.")).
~
f{W //'(
All parties
have consented to my exercising plenary jurisdiction pursuant to
26 O.S.C.
§
636(c).
For the reasons set forth below, plaintiffs
are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $143,141.50 plus
out-of-pocket costs of $9,315.50.
II.
Facts 1
Plaintiffs were employed at East Market Restaurant,
Inc.
( "East Market") as food preparation service workers from
June 7, 2007 through June 11, 2014.
Sai Qin Chen v. East Market
Restaurant, Inc., supra, 2018 WL 340016 at *l.
tried before me on June 20, 21 and 22, 2016.
This matter was
On January 9, 2018,
I issued an Opinion and Order finding that defendant East Market
and the individual defendants were plaintiffs' employers at all
relevant times under the FLSA and the NYLL and, thus, were liable
to plaintiffs for unpaid wages.
Sai Qin Chen v. East Market
Restaurant, Inc., supra, 2018 WL 340016 at *4-*7.
I then awarded
an appropriate amount of damages to each plaintiff based on their
recollection of hours worked because defendants' time records
were incomplete as to some plaintiffs and non-existent as to
others.
Sai Qin Chen v. East Market Restaurant, Inc., supra,
2018 WL 340016 at *17; see also Agudelo v. E
1
&
D LLC, 12 Civ.
The facts giving rise to this action are set forth in
further detail my previous Opinion and Order.
See Sai Qin Chen
v. East Market Restaurant, Inc., 13 Civ. 3902 (HBP), 2018 WL
340016 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2018).
The reader's familiarity with
that Opinion is presumed.
I shall set out any additional facts
to the extent they are pertinent to the legal analysis.
2
0960 (HB), 2012 WL 6183677 at *2
D. J.)
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2012)
(Baer,
( finding " [ i] n the absence of rebuttal by defendants, a
plaintiff's recollection and estimates of hours worked are
presumed to be correct"), citing Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery
Co., 328 U.S. 680, 688
(1946).
I further ordered plaintiffs to submit a fee application, accompanied by contemporaneous time records, establishing
the legal fees they incurred in prosecuting this action.
Chen v. East Market Restaurant,
*10.
Sai Qin
Inc., supra, 2018 WL 340016 at
Plaintiffs timely submitted declarations and contemporane-
ous time records in support of their application for attorneys'
fees in the amount of $143,141.50 plus out-of-pocket costs of
$9,315.50 (Declaration of David A. Colodny, dated Jan. 22, 2018
( D. I. 8 7)
( "Colodny Deel.") ; Declaration of Aaron Halegua, dated
Jan. 22, 2018
(D. I. 88)
("Halegua Deel."); Declaration of Stuart
Lichten, dated Jan. 18, 2018
(D. I. 89)
("Lichten Deel."); Decla-
ration of Carmela Huang, dated Jan. 23, 2018)
("Huang Deel.")).
Defendants did not submit a response or opposition to
the amount of fees sought by plaintiffs.
3
III.
Analysis
A.
Applicable Principles
Whether an attorneys' fee award is reasonable is within
the discretion of the court.
bles Inc., 12 Civ. 6852
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015)
Melgadejo v. S & D Fruits & Vegeta-
(RA) (HBP), 2015 WL 10353140 at *23
(Pitman, M.J.)
(Report
&
Recommenda-
tion), adopted at, 2016 WL 554843 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2016)
(Abrams, D.J.).
The party seeking fees bears the burden of
establishing that the hourly rates and the number of hours for
which compensation is sought are reasonable.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437
Hensley v.
(1983); accord Cruz v. Local Union
No. 3 of Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148, 1160 (2d Cir.
1994) .
In determining the amount of reasonable attorneys'
fees,
"[b]oth [the Second Circuit] and the Supreme Court have
held that the lodestar -- the product of a reasonable hourly rate
and the reasonable number of hours required by the case -creates a 'presumptively reasonable fee.'"
R.R. Co.,
Millea v. Metro-North
658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011), quoting Arbor Hill
Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 522
F. 3d 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2008).
The hourly rates used in determin-
ing a fee award should be "what a reasonable, paying client would
be willing to pay."
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood
4
Ass'n v. County of Albany, supra, 522 F.3d at 184.
This rate
should be "in line with those [rates] prevailing in the community
for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill,
experience and reputation."
n.11
(1984).
Blum v. Stenson,
465 U.S. 886, 895
"[C]ourts should generally use 'the hourly rates
employed in the district in which the reviewing court sits' in
calculating the presumptively reasonable fee."
Arbor Hill
Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, supra,
522 F.3d at 192, quoting In re "Agent Orange" Prods. Liab.
Litig., 818 F.2d 226, 232
(2d Cir. 1987).
In so doing, the court
is free to rely on its own familiarity with the prevailing rates
in the district.
See Miele v. New York State Teamsters Confer-
ence Pension & Ret. Fund, 831 F.2d 407, 409
The Honorable Loretta A.
(2d Cir. 1987).
Preska, United States District
Judge, has summarized the factors to be considered in assessing
the reasonableness of the hours claimed in a fee application:
To assess the reasonableness of the time expended
by an attorney, the court must look first to the time
and work as they are documented by the attorney's
records.
See Forschner Group, Inc. v. Arrow Trading
Co., Inc., No. 92 Civ. 6953 (LAP), 1998 WL 879710, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 1998).
Next the court looks to
"its own familiarity with the case and its experience
generally .
. Because attorneys' fees are dependent
on the unique facts of each case, the resolution of the
issue is committed to the discretion of the district
court." AFP Imaging Corp. v. Phillips Medizin Sys.,
No. 92 Civ. 6211 (LMM), 1994 WL 698322, at *l (S.D.N.Y.
Dec.
13,
1994)
(quoting Clarke v.
Frank,
960 F.2d 1146,
1153 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting DiFilippo v. Morizio,
F.2d 231, 236 (2d Cir. 1985))).
5
759
*
*
*
Finally, billing judgment must be factored into
the equation.
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434; DiFilippo, 759
F.2d at 235-36.
If a court finds that the fee applicant's claim is excessive, or that time spent was
wasteful or duplicative, it may decrease or disallow
certain hours or, where the application for fees is
voluminous, order an across-the-board percentage reduction in compensable hours.
In re "Agent Orange" Products Liab. Litig., 818 F.2d 226, 237 (2d Cir. 1987)
(stating that "in cases in which substantial numbers of
voluminous fee petitions are filed, the district court
has the authority to make across-the-board percentage
cuts in hours 'as a practical means of trimming fat
from a fee application'" (quoting Carey, 711 F.2d at
1146)); see also United States Football League v.
National Football League, 887 F.2d 408, 415 (2d Cir.
1989) (approving a percentage reduction of total fee
award to account for vagueness in documentation of
certain time entries).
Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. v. Spitzer, 00 Civ. 7274
Civ. 7750
(LAP), 00
(LAP), 2002 WL 498631 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2002);
accord Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, 461 U.S. at 434.
B.
Application of
the Foregoing Principles
Plaintiffs' counsel in this matter included four
attorneys:
David Colodny, Esq. 2 and Carmela Huang, Esq. from the
Urban Justice Center; Stuart Lichten, Esq. from Lichten & Bright,
2
David Colodny is presently employed as the Director of
Legal Services for Catholic Migration Services, but he was
previously employed by the Urban Justice Center.
He acted as cocounsel for plaintiffs while he was employed by the Urban Justice
Center.
6
P.C. and Aaron Huang from Aaron Halegua,
PLLC.
Their positions,
requested hourly rates and hours recorded are as follows:
Position
Hours
Recorded
David Colodny
Supervising
Attorney,
20 years
experience
$425
16.70
Stuart Lichten
Partner,
18 years
experience
$400
48.75
Carmela Huang
Supervising
Attorney,
8 years
experience
$300
291.00
Aaron Halegua
Partner,
8 years
experience
$300
97.48
(Pl. Memo. at 3).
1.
Reasonable
Hourly Rate
As the chart above indicates, plaintiffs seek fees
based on hourly rates ranging from $300 to $425.
Courts of this
Circuit commonly allow for hourly rates of $300 to $400 for
experienced attorneys or partners in FLSA and NYLL wage-and-hour
cases.
See Greathouse v.
(PAE) (GWG),
(Engelmayer,
(PAE),
JHS Security,
2017 WL 4174811 at *4
Inc.,
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2017)
D.J.); Cortes v. New Creators,
2016 WL 3455383 at *7
(S.D.N.Y.
7
11 Civ. 7845
Jun.
Inc.,
20,
15 Civ.
2016)
5680
(Engelmayer, D.J.); Castellanos v. Mid Bronx Cmty. Hous. Mgmt.
Corp., 13 Civ. 3061
10, 2014)
(Koeltl, D.J.); Trinidad v. Pret a Manger (USA) Ltd.,
12 Civ. 6094
2014)
(JGK), 2014 WL 2624759 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jun.
(PAE), 2014 WL 4670870 at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19,
(Engelmayer, D. J.)
.
Considering plaintiffs' counsel's experience, as set
forth in each of their declarations, along with the nature of the
matter and my familiarity with the prevailing rates for litigators, I find that the proposed hourly rates are reasonable.
Powell v. Metro One Loss Prevention Servs. Grp.
(Guard Div. NY),
Inc., 12 Civ. 4221 (LAP) (OF), 2015 WL 9287121 at *2-*4
Feb. 5, 2015)
(Freeman, M.J.)
(Report
&
See
(S.D.N.Y.
Recommendation)
(awarding
$650 hourly rate to partner with more than 35 years of experience
in employment law and $350 hourly rate to associate with 8 years
of experience), adopted at, 2015 WL 9255338
2015)
(Preska, D.J.); Clark v. Gotham Lasik, PLLC, 11 Civ. 1307
(LGS), 2013 WL 4437220 at *7
D. J.)
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17,
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2013)
(Schofield,
(awarding $500 hourly rate to partner with more than 15
years of experience in employment law and $275 hourly rate with
associate with 4.5 years of experience).
2.
Reasonable
Number of Hours
The party seeking attorneys' fees also bears the burden
of establishing that the number of hours for which compensation
8
is sought is reasonable.
Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of Int'l Bhd.
of Elec. Workers, supra, 34 F.3d at 1160, citing Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437
09 Civ. 4402
2010)
(1983); Wong v. Hunda Glass Coro.,
(RLE), 2010 WL 3452417 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1,
(Ellis, M. J.).
Courts "should exclude
hours that
were not reasonably expended," such as where there is overstaffing or the hours are "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary."
Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra, 4 61 U.S. at 4 34
( internal
quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiffs submitted contemporaneous time records for
all attorneys that set forth the date on which services were
performed, the hours spent and the nature of the work performed.
I have reviewed each of the entries in the time records, and I
find that the number of hours counsel spent litigating this case
from its filing in 2013 through trial in 2016 are reasonable.
Considering this action involved seven different plaintiffs,
extensive motion practice and discovery, multiple depositions,
and a three-day trial, 453.93 hours spent on this litigation is
reasonable.
Furthermore, the majority of hours were billed to
the more junior attorneys, Ms. Huang and Mr. Halegua, rather than
the more senior partners who predominantly served in a supervisory role (see Time Records, annexed to Colodny Deel. as Ex. A;
Time Records, annexed to Lichten Deel.).
Japanese Restaurant, Inc., 13 Civ. 6667
9
Zhang v. Lin Kumo
(PAE), 2015 WL 5122530 at
*2
(S.D.N.Y. Aug.
31, 2015)
(Engelmayer,
D.J.)
(discussing the
potential for abuse in billing every menial task in a litigation
at a senior partner rate).
Furthermore, defendants have not
questioned the number of hours for which compensation is sought.
Accordingly, no reduction of fees is warranted.
3.
Costs Requested
It is well-settled in this Circuit that "attorney's
fees awards include those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses
incurred by attorneys and ordinarily charged to their clients."
LeBlanc-Sternberg v.
Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748,
accord Tlacoapa v. Carregal,
2 005)
(Robinson,
Service,
386 F. Supp. 2d 362,
D. J. ) ; see also Kuzma v.
821 F.2d 930,
933-34
763
(2d Cir. 1998);
374
(S.D.N.Y.
Internal Revenue
(2d Cir. 1987).
The party moving
for costs bears the burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of
each charge and "failure to provide adequate documentation of
costs incurred will limit, or even defeat,
Ecua Restaurant,
Inc.,
*20
(E.D.N.Y.
Jan.
at,
2018 WL 113 5 6 5 2
recovery."
17-CV-3316 (PKC) (CLP),
31, 2018)
( E. D. N. Y.
Piedra v.
2018 WL 1136039 at
(Report & Recommendation),
adopted
Feb. 2 8, 2018) .
Plaintiffs request an award of $9,315.50 for costs
incurred in this action.
These costs are itemized and accompa-
nied by copies of receipts and invoices
(Out-of-pocket Costs
Invoices, annexed to Huang Deel. as Exs. A through N).
10
Specifi-
cally, plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement of (1)
fee;
(2)
a $400 filing
a $46.50 fee for documents received pursuant to a New
York State Department of Labor
request;
("001")
(3)
$2,339 in
court reporter and deposition transcript fees and (4)
interpreter fees and services
$6,530 in
(Huang Deel. 11 9(a)-(n)).
Plaintiffs' request for a filing fee and the DOL
production fee are reasonable and supported by documentation.
Thus, these fees are recoverable costs.
Grp.
Pension Plan v.
(MKB),
See Nat'l Integrated
Dunhill Food Equip. Corp.,
2014 WL 887222 at *10
(E.D.N.Y.
Jan.
6,
11 Civ.
2014)
3652
("Filing
fees and service of process are specifically included in the
statute, and therefore plaintiffs here may recover them."),
citing 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
"The cost of deposition transcripts may be recovered if
they are necessary to the litigation."
Nat'l Integrated Grp.
Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equip. Corp.,
supra,
at *11; see also Hernandez v. JRPAC Inc., 14 Civ.
2017 WL 66325 at *2
(S.D.N.Y.
Jan.
6,
2017)
2014 WL 887222
4176
(PAE),
(Engelmayer,
D.J.)
(court reporter fees for depositions were "adequately documented,
reasonable,
and of the type
[of costs] commonly reimbursed by
courts in this District"); Natural Organics,
Nutraceutical Corp.,
*4-*5
(S.D.N.Y.
Aug.
01 Civ. 384
6,
2009)
Inc. v.
(GBD) (RLE), 2009 WL 2424188 at
(Ellis, M.J.)
(awarding the costs
of depositions transcripts where they were used at trial or
11
"reasonably necessary to the litigation at the time they were
taken"); J. S. Nicol. Inc. v. Peking Handicraft, Inc.,
1548 (GBD) (AJP), 2008 WL 4613752 at *17
( Peck, M. J.)
03 Civ.
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008)
(deposition transcript fees recoverable as costs
under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and S.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 54.1 if
necessarily obtained for use at trial).
Because this action
ultimately proceeded to trial after these depositions and because
plaintiffs have submitted detailed and itemized receipts for the
deposition transcript fees,
I find their $2,339 reimbursement
request to be reasonable and recoverable.
Finally, plaintiffs request $6,530 in interpreter fees.
Interpreter fees are recoverable costs because they are included
in "those reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred by attorneys
and ordinarily charged to their clients."
LeBlanc-Sternberg v.
Fletcher, supra, 143 F.3d at 763; accord Tacuri v. Nithin Constr.
Co., 14 Civ. 2908
(CBA) (RER), 2015 WL 790060 at *15
(E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 24, 2015); see also Guo v. Tommy's Sushi, Inc., 14 Civ. 3961
(PAE), 2016 WL 452319 at *7
D.J.)
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2016)
(Engelmayer,
(interpreter fees recoverable as out-of-pocket costs in
this District); Allende v. Unitech Design, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d
509, 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)
(Peck, M.J.)
(awarding costs of inter-
preters who translated at depositions and court conferences in a
FLSA action).
12
The hourly fees of the interpreters employed by plaintiffs' counsel ranged from $65 to $117
(Out-of-pocket Costs
Invoices, annexed to Huang Deel. as Exs. A through N).
hourly fees are reasonable for this District.
These
See Boutros v. JTC
Painting & Decorating Corp., 12 Civ. 7576 (PAE), 2014 WL 3925281
at *6-*7
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2014)
(Engelmayer, D.J.)
(awarding an
hourly rate of $125 for Spanish language translations).
$6,530 in interpreter fees appears very high on its face,
Although
I
acknowledge that nearly every witness at depositions and trial
required the use of an interpreter, including defendants and
plaintiffs.
recoverable.
Thus, I find this request to be reasonable and
Hernandez v. JRPAC Inc., supra, 2017 WL 66325 at *2
(awarding $4,500 in fees for interpreters used during a FLSA
trial).
IV.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs are awarded
$143,141.50 in attorneys' fees and $9,315.50 in out-of-pocket
costs incurred in this action.
Dated:
New York, New York
August 20, 2018
SO ORDERED
HENRYPTIAN
United States Magistrate Judge
13
Copies transmitted to:
All Counsel
14
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?