Angelo, Gordon & Co., L.P. v. MTE Holdings LLC
Filing
13
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 10 Motion for Attorney Fees. Angelo Gordon's motion for attorney's fees is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Angelo Gordon is awarded $47,146.25 in attorney's fees and $154.24 in litigation expenses, for a total award of $47,300.49. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 4/12/2021) (kv) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2020). The Court ordered Angelo Gordon to file contemporaneous billing
records and other expenses in support of an award for fees and costs by August 27, 2020, and
Debtors to file any opposition to Angelo Gordon by September 10, 2020. Id. Angelo Gordon
filed their motion and records on August 27, 2020. ECF Nos. 10–11. Respondent has not filed
opposition papers.
DISCUSSION
I.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1) requires courts to impose a sanction of
“reasonable attorney’s fees” where the party or attorney issuing a subpoena failed to take
“reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4f(d)(1). “The fee applicant bears the burden of establishing
entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.”
Dancy v. McGinley, 141 F. Supp. 3d 231, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart,
461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983)) (alteration omitted). A court’s calculation of “the lodestar—the
product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the
case—creates a presumptively reasonable fee.” Millea v. Metro-N. R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166
(2d Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The reasonable hourly rate is the
rate a paying client would be willing to pay.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood
Ass’n v. Cty. of Albany & Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2008). In
calculating that rate, the court must “bear in mind all of the case-specific variables . . . relevant to
the reasonableness of attorney’s fees.” Id. These include:
the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the
level of skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of
employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the attorney’s
customary hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time
2
limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in
the case and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the
attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the
professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.
Id. at 186 n.3; see id. at 191. There is a presumption that “a reasonable, paying client would in
most cases hire counsel from within his district, or at least counsel whose rates are consistent
with those charged locally,” and so in ordinary circumstances courts may rely on typical fees
within the district as a measure of reasonableness. Id. at 191.
In determining the number of hours reasonably expended, courts must consider both
“contemporaneous time records specifying, for each attorney, the date, hours expended, and
nature of the work done,” Marion S. Mishkin Law Office v. Lopalo, 767 F.3d 144, 148 (2d Cir.
2011) (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted), as well as “its own familiarity
with the case and . . . its experience generally as well as . . . the evidentiary submissions and
arguments of the parties,” Clarke v. Frank, 960 F.2d 1146, 1153 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Courts may reduce the fee award requested in some
circumstances, such as when plaintiffs submit deficient or incomplete billing records, see
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12, or in order to exclude “excessive, redundant, or otherwise
unnecessary hours,” Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422, 425 (2d Cir. 1999).
Once the lodestar is calculated, it may be adjusted only “when it does not adequately take
into account a factor that may properly be considered in determining a reasonable fee.” Millea,
658 F.3d at 167 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The Second Circuit has
instructed, however, that “such adjustments are appropriate only in rare circumstances,” and “a
court may not adjust the lodestar based on factors already included in the lodestar calculation
itself,” but rather “only by factors relevant to the determination of reasonable attorneys’ fees that
3
were not already considered in the initial lodestar calculation.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
II.
Reasonable Hourly Rate
Angelo Gordon was represented by the law firm of Jones Day and the legal team
assigned to this case consisted of eight individuals. Angelo Gordon does not provide
information about this team outside of their billing records, where the timekeepers are listed with
their first or first and middle initials and their last name. See Ghaul Decl., ECF No. 11; Billing
Records, ECF No. 11-1. After examining filings in this case and Jones Day’s website, the Court
has identified six of these individuals as partners Lee Armstrong, Charles Bensinger, Joshua
Mester, and Laura Sawyer, and associates Genna Ghaul and Furqaan Siddiqui. See ECF Nos. 1,
5, 11; Joshua M. Mester, Jones Day, https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/m/joshua-mester
(last visited April 12, 2021); Charles N. Bensinger III, Jones Day,
https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/b/charles-bensinger (last visited April 12, 2021); Lee A.
Armstrong, Jones Day, https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/a/lee-armstrong (last visited Apr.
12, 2021). The Court has not identified the billers “M. Telegan” and “M. Melvin,” though it
deduces that they may be the paralegals or other support staff referenced in Angelo Gordon’s
declaration. See Ghaul Decl. ¶ 12.
Angelo Gordon requests hourly rates of between $1,175 to $1,350 for the Jones Day
partners. ECF No. 11-1. These rates, though on the higher end, are comparable to rates awarded
in this jurisdiction for firms in the “the New York City ‘big firm’ market.” See, e.g., Vista
Outdoor Inc. v. Reeves Family Tr., No. 16 Civ. 5766, 2018 WL 3104631, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May
24, 2018) (awarding fees of $1,170 to $1,260 for partners at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP); In
re Relativity Fashion, LLC, No. 15 Br. 11989, 565 B.R. 50, 70 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017), and In
4
re Relativity Fashion, LLC, No. 15 Br. 11989 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016), ECF No 1965
(awarding hourly rates of up to $1,225 for Jones Day partners). Moreover, “the best evidence of
the reasonableness of the ‘market’ value of a particular law firm’s services (and therefore the
reasonableness of its fees) are the fees that the law firm normally charges its clients in other
matters.” In re Relativity Fashion, 565 B.R. at 70. These rates are “the same or similar to those
paid by Jones Day’s other clients.” Ghaul Decl. ¶ 11. Accordingly, the Court finds the rates for
the partners reasonable.
For the associates, Angelo Gordon requests hourly rates of $875 for Genna Ghaul, who
graduated from Columbia Law School in 2013, and $625 for Furqaan Siddiqui, who graduated
from the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law in 2017. See Billing Records;
Genna Ghaul, Jones Day, https://www.jonesday.com/en/lawyers/g/genna-ghaul (last visited Apr.
12, 2021); Furqaan Siddiqui, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
https://www.weil.com/people/furqaan-siddiqui (last visited Apr. 12, 2021). Courts in this district
have found hourly rates of $753 on the “upper limit” of rates award for associates in this district,
even those at firms comparable to Jones Day. Visa Outdoor Inc., 2018 WL 3104631, at *7
(awarding hourly rate of up to $626 for a fifth-year associate). In general, courts decline to
award hourly rates of over $650 for associates. See In re Relativity Fashion, 565 B.R. at 70, and
In re Relativity Fashion, No. 15 Br. 11989, ECF No. 1965 (awarding hourly rates of up to $650
for Jones Day associates); Kortright Cap. Partners LP v. Investcorp Inv. Advisers Ltd., 392 F.
Supp. 3d 382, 407–08 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), appeal withdrawn, No. 19-2836, 2019 WL 6652238 (2d
Cir. Sept. 23, 2019) (concluding an hourly rate of $650, rather than the requested range of $555
to $980, was reasonable where plaintiff “fail[ed] to submit any evidence relating to these
attorneys’ legal experience and skill that would allow this [c]ourt to ascertain the prevailing
5
market rates for similar services”). Accordingly, the Court will apply an hourly rate of $650 for
Ghaul and $625 for Siddiqui.
Finally, Angelo Gordon requests hourly rates of $400 and $550 for Melvin and Telegan,
respectively, who the Court deduces are paralegals and legal support staff. Billing Records;
Ghaul Decl. ¶ 12. Angelo Gordon does not provide any information regarding these individuals,
and, therefore, the Court infers that they do not have paralegal or law school experience.
Balestriere PLLC v. CMA Trading, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 9459, 2014 WL 7404068, at *9 (S.D.N.Y.
Dec. 31, 2014); Carrington v. Graden, No. 18 Civ. 4609, 2020 WL 5758916, at *15 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 28, 2020) (“Courts have chosen to reduce hourly rates for paralegals when no information
was provided as to their experience and expertise.”). Moreover, the requested rates are
significantly higher than those generally awarded in this district, which range from $100 to $200.
See Visa Outdoor Inc., 2018 WL 3104631, at *7 (awarding an hourly rate of $150 for paralegals
as opposed to the requested $390–$500); Carrington, 2020 WL 5758916, at *15 (awarding $180
for a paralegal where no information was provided regarding his experience); Advanced
Analytics, Inc. v. Citigroup Glob. Mkts, Inc., No. 04 Civ. 3531, 2020 WL 91504, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
Jan. 8, 2020), reconsideration denied, No. 04 Civ. 3531, 2020 WL 3056450 (S.D.N.Y. June 9,
2020) (awarding hourly rates between $141.35 and $205.42 for paralegals and non-legal
personnel). The Court will, accordingly, apply an hourly rate of $180 for Melvin and Telegan.
III.
Reasonable Hours Worked
Angelo Gordon submits the following hours worked: Armstrong, 0.75 hours; Bensinger,
0.25 hours; Mester, 7 hours; Sawyer, 8.25 hours; Ghaul, 18.25 hours; Siddiqui, 25.85; Melvin,
3.5 hours; and Telegan, 4.5 hours. ECF No. 11-1. The Court has reviewed Angelo Gordon’s
attorneys’ time records and finds the documentation of each timekeepers’ hours adequate and the
6
time spent reasonable, and Debtors do not contest the issue. Ramos v. Greenwich Catering
Corp., No. 18 Civ. 4790, 2020 WL 833071, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2020) (reviewing the
invoices submitted in an unopposed motion for attorney’s fees invoices before approving the
hours as reasonable). However, in Mester’s January 11, 2020 time entry, he includes time for
“communicate with P. Sivin regarding discovery and settlement[;] review settlement stipulation,
discovery, and communicate with G. Ghaul and others regarding same,” which comprise two of
the 3.25 hours billed in that entry. ECF No. 11-1. Angelo Gordon does not mention a settlement
in connection with this action, nor does it provide information concerning the role of “P. Sivin.”
Angelo Gordon indicates that, “[c]ertain time entries included work on matters in addition to
work in relation to the [d]eposition [s]ubpoena and [m]otion to [q]uash,” but, “only the time
estimated to have been spent on matters in relation to the [d]eposition [s]ubpoena and [m]otion
to [q]uash is included.” ECF No. 11 at 2 n.1. The Court concludes, therefore, that the inclusion
of this time is in error, and counts that entry as only 1.25 hours, reducing Mester’s hours to five.
IV.
Calculation of Fees
Based on the findings above, the fees owed to Angelo Gordon are calculated as follows.
Armstrong is credited with 0.75 hours at a rate of $1,250 per hour, for an award of $937.50.
Bensinger is credited with 0.25 hours at a rate of $1,225 per hour, for an award of $306.25.
Mester is credited with 5 hours at a rate of $1,350 per hour, for an award of $6,750. Sawyer is
credited with 8.25 hours at a rate of $1,175, for an award of $9,693.75. Ghaul is credited with
18.25 hours at a rate of $650 per hour, for an award of $11,862.50. Siddiqui is credited with
25.85 hours at a rate of $625 per hour, for an award of $16,156.25. Melvin is credited with 3.5
hours at a rate of $180 per hour, for an award of $630. Telegan is credited with 4.5 hours at a
rate of $180 per hour, for an award of $810. Thus, the total lodestar amount equals $47,146.25.
7
The Court also concludes that this is not one of the “rare circumstances” in which the lodestar
amount “does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered in
determining a reasonable fee.” Millea, 658 F.3d at 167 (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Accordingly, Angelo Gordon is awarded $47,146.25 in attorney’s fees.
V.
Costs
Angelo Gordon also seeks $154.24 in litigation expenses. ECF No. 11-2. Such expenses
must be supported by documentation. Sevilla v. Nekasa Inc., No. 16 Civ. 2368, 2017 WL
1185572, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017) (collecting cases). Angelo Gordon has provided
reasonable documentation to support $154.24 in mailing and service fees, and Debtors do not
object to these costs. See Darby v. Sterling Home Care, Inc., No. 17 Civ. 5370, 2020 WL 29932,
at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2020) (concluding service fees and mailing documents constituted
“reasonable out-of-pocket expenses”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Accordingly, Angelo Gordon is awarded $154.24 in litigation expenses.
CONCLUSION
Angelo Gordon’s motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Angelo Gordon is awarded $47,146.25 in attorney’s fees and $154.24 in litigation expenses, for a
total award of $47,300.49.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 12, 2021
New York, New York
8
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?