Tabatznik v. Turner

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER #107015 re: 68 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Andrew Turner. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff is directed to, within 10 days of the date of this Order, electronically file an updated calculation of interest due under the promissory note. (As further set forth in this Memorandum Opinion & Order.) (Signed by Judge John F. Keenan on 1/30/2017) (mro) Modified on 1/31/2017 (jwh).

Case 1:09-md-02013-PAC Document 57

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
-----------------------------------X
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANTHONY TABATZNIK,
-----------------------------------------------------------x

Filed 09/30/10 Page 1 of 45
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 01/30/2017

In re FANNIE MAE 2008 SECURITIES
LITIGATION
Plaintiff,

:
08 Civ. 7831 (PAC)
:
09 MD 2013 (PAC)
:No. 14 Civ. 8135 (JFK)
:
OPINION & ORDER
-against-----------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM OPINION &
ORDER
ANDREW TURNER,
Defendant.
HONORABLE PAUL A. CROTTY, United States District Judge:
-----------------------------------X
JOHN F. KEENAN, United States District Judge:

BACKGROUND1
In a March 30, 2016 Opinion & Order (the "Opinion"), this
The early years of this decade saw a boom in home financing which was fueled, among
Court (1) granted Plaintiff Anthony Tabatznik's motion for
other things, by low interest rates and lax credit conditions. New lending instruments, such as
summary judgment to enforce the amount owed on a promissory
subprime mortgages (high credit risk loans) and Alt-A mortgages (low-documentation loans)
note; and (2) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's
kept the boom going. Borrowers played a role too; they took on unmanageable risks on the
Defendant Andrew Turner
motion for interest, fees, and costs.
assumption that the market would continue to rise and that refinancing options would always be
has moved for reconsideration of a section of the Opinion
available in the future. Lending discipline was lacking in the system. Mortgage originators did
finding that the reasonable rate for the work of non-attorneys
not hold these high-risk mortgage loans. Rather than carry the rising risk on their books, the
For the
employed by Plaintiff's counsel is $200 per hour.
originators sold their loans into the secondary mortgage market, often as securitized packages
reasons set forth below, the motion for reconsideration is
known as mortgage-backed securities (“MBSs”). MBS markets grew almost exponentially.
denied.
But then the housing bubble burst. In 2006, the demand for housing dropped abruptly
The standards controlling a motion for reconsideration are
and home prices began to fall. In light of the changing housing market, banks modified their
set forth in Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rule 60(b) of the Federal
lending practices and became unwilling to refinance home mortgages without refinancing.
Under these strict standards,
Rules of Civil Procedure.
reconsideration should be denied "unless the moving party can
1

Unless otherwise indicated, all references cited as “(¶ _)” or to the “Complaint” are to the Amended Complaint,

point dated controllingpurposes of this Motion, all allegations in the Amended Complaint are taken as true.
to June 22, 2009. For decisions or data that the court

1
1

overlooked-matters,

in other words, that might reasonably be

expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court." Shrader
v. CSX Transp.,

Inc.,

70 F.3d 255,

257

(2d Cir. 1995).

Here, the Court's Opinion explained that the rates charged
by Plaintiff's counsel, Kobre & Kim LLP,
"legal analysts"

($375 per hour)

for the work of its

and "litigation assistants"

($185 per hour), were unreasonable.

(Opinion at 32-33.)

Rather

than reducing each rate independently, however, the Court
applied a blended rate for the work of non-attorneys in both
positions.

(Id. at 34.)

The Court noted that "contemporaneous

cases in the Southern District of New York-albeit for different
causes of action-suggest that paralegal fees range between $100
and $280."

(Id. at 33

No.

12 Civ.

28,

2016)

(citing Doe v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

9327(LAK) (AJP),

2016 WL 335867, at *6

(approving $200 paralegal rate); Tackney v. WB Imico

Lexington Fee, LLC, No. 10 Civ. 2734(PGG),
*5

(S.D.N.Y. Jan.

(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2015)

2015 WL 1190096, at

(approving $135 paralegal rate);

Genger v. Genger, No. 14 Civ. 5683, 2015 WL 1011718, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. Mar.

9,

2015)

(approving a paralegal rate of $260-80

even though it "might reflect some degree of largesse"); Sprint
Commc'ns Co. v. Chong, No. 13 Civ. 3846
at *8

(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21,

2014)

(approving $180-205 paralegal

rate); Berrian v. City of N.Y., No.
WL 6611356, at *7

(RA), 2014 WL 6611484,

(S.D.N.Y. July 28,

2

13 Civ. 1719(DLC) (OF),
2014)

(approving $100

2014

-----------------------------------------

paralegal rate)).

Considering the relative complexity of this

multitransaction, multijurisdictional case, the Court applied a
blended rate of $200 per hour.
In seeking reconsideration and the application of a lower
rate for Kobre & Kim LLP's litigation assistants, the Defendant
points to what he argues is an inconsistency in the Court's
Opinion.

Specifically, the Defendant contends that "the Court

expressly held that the $185 hourly rate for Kobre & Kim's
litigation assistants exceeded the 'reasonable rate in this
district for paralegal services,' yet increased that rate from
$185 to $200 per hour in the Order." (Def.'s Mem. at 2 (quoting
Opinion at 33) . )

However, as explained above, the Court applied

a blended rate to encompass the work of both litigation
assistants and legal analysts.

Thus, there was no inconsistency

in applying a rate that was $15 above the rate charged for
litigation assistants and $175 below the rate charged for legal
analysts.

As the Court explained, the blended $200 hourly rate

was well within the range that other courts in this district
have found reasonable for comparable non-attorney services.

(See

Opinion at 33-34.)
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion for reconsideration is
denied.

Plaintiff is directed to, within 10 days of the date of

3

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this Order, electronically file an updated calculation of
interest due under the promissory note.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

New York, New York
January 30, 2017
Hon.
F. Keenan
United States District Judge

4