Accettola v. He et al

Filing 62

ORDER granting 58 Motion for Attorney Fees. Accordingly, the Court awards Defendants $3,690 for the time of Defendants' lawyer. It was not the Court's intention to award Defendants fees for work that would benefit the reschedu led deposition. The 2.5 hours billed by the legal assistant are reasonable for a total of $287.50. Defendants have not substantiated that their costs were related to the cancelled deposition. Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendants a sum of $3,977.50 within thirty days of the date of this Order and to file proof of having done so with the Court. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 58. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 9/23/2024) (ks) Transmission to Finance Unit (Cashiers) for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
HONG DANIELLE ACCETTOLA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
LINDA MEI HE et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

09/23/2024

23-cv-1983 (LJL)
ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:
On July 1, 2024, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order requiring Plaintiff Hong
Danielle Accettola to pay Defendants’ attorneys’ fees as a sanction for her failure to appear at
her noticed deposition on June 14, 2024. Dkt. No. 54. The Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the
attorneys’ fees and costs of Defendants in preparing for and attending the cancelled deposition
and in preparing its motion for sanctions. Id. at 7.
As a general matter, the “starting point” and “lodestar” in analyzing whether claimed
attorneys’ fees are appropriate is “the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable
number of hours required by the case.” Milea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d
Cir. 2011); see also Lilly v. City of New York, 934 F.3d 222, 227–34 (2d Cir. 2019) (discussing
calculation of reasonable hourly rates and reasonable number of hours expended). The party
seeking fees bears the burden of demonstrating that its hourly rates and requested hours are
reasonable, and must provide a court with sufficient information to assess the fee application.
See Allende v. Unitech Design, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 509, 512–13 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). The
reasonable hourly rate is the rate a paying client would be willing to pay,” bearing in mind “that
a reasonable, paying client wishes to spend the minimum necessary to litigate the case

effectively.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany & Albany
Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d Cir. 2008). An attorney’s hourly rate is considered
reasonable when it is in line with those rates prevailing in the district in which the court sits “for
similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” Trs. of
N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, &
Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educ. & Indus. Fund v. M&B Builders Grp. Inc., 2018
WL 6067229, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2018) (citation and punctuation omitted); accord
McDonald ex rel. Prendergast v. Pension Plan of the NYSA-ILA Pension Tr. Fund, 450 F.3d 91,
96 (2d Cir. 2006). Once a reasonable rate of pay has been calculated, it is multiplied by a
reasonable number of hours expended to determine the award amount. In this process, the court
has discretion to disregard hours viewed as “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.”
Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 213 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
434 (1983)).
The only information Defendants provide regarding their attorney is that he bears the title
“Of Counsel.” Dkt. No. 58 at ECF p. 2. Accordingly, the Court finds that a rate of $300 an hour
is reasonable. See Ruradan Corp. v. City of New York, 2024 WL 3567276, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July
29, 2024) (awarding fees of $300 an hour “[i]n light of the prevailing market rate and the dearth
of information as to Plaintiff’s counsel’s skill, experience”); see also Zero Carbon Holdings,
LLC v. Aspiration Partners, Inc. 2024 WL 3409278, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2024) (holding that
courts have reduced fee requests where the fee applicant has not provided basic information
necessary to assess the reasonableness of rates). An hourly rate of $115 an hour is appropriate
for the paralegal. See id. at *8.

2

Counsel billed 5.5 hours related to the deposition on June 13, 2024 and 3.9 hours on the
date of the deposition. Counsel also billed 2.9 hours preparing and filing the motion for
sanctions. Accordingly, the Court awards Defendants $3,690 for the time of Defendants’ lawyer.
It was not the Court’s intention to award Defendants fees for work that would benefit the
rescheduled deposition. The 2.5 hours billed by the legal assistant are reasonable for a total of
$287.50. Defendants have not substantiated that their costs were related to the cancelled
deposition.
Plaintiff is ordered to pay Defendants a sum of $3,977.50 within thirty days of the date of
this Order and to file proof of having done so with the Court. The Clerk of Court is respectfully
directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 58.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 23, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge

3