PRICE v. AMAN & NIKHIL, INC. et al
Filing
33
MEMORANDUM OPINION on the 28 First MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by ARILLA PRICE. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on 08/27/2014. (jmb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARILLA PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAN & NIKHIL INC,, et al,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 13 – 1314
Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
ECF No. 28
MEMORANDUM OPINION REGARDING MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees. Defendants have filed a
Brief in Opposition. A telephone conference was held on August 27, 2014. Following review of
the briefs of the parties as well as argument, the Motion is now ripe for disposition.
This case was originally filed as both an individual claim on behalf of Plaintiff, Arilla
Price, and both a collective claim on behalf of all others similarly situated under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and a Class Action claim also on behalf of all others similarly situated under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968. The parties reached a settlement as to the individual
claims of Ms. Price after a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment in the amount of $4774.50. The collective
and class action claims were not pursued.
Plaintiff has submitted a fee petition in the amount of $29,622.50 arguing that Plaintiff
was the prevailing party as required by law. U.S. v. Hensley,461 U.S. 424 (1983). Defendants
argue that Plaintiff prevailed only on the individual claim and did not prevail on either the
collective or the class action claims and therefore, the bill should be reduced by at least 50%.
Defendants further argue that the billing rates for Ms. Leonard and Mr. Manes are far in excess
of what a similarly situated attorney would charge in this jurisdiction, some of the billing is
excessive given the repetitive nature of this litigation, and the entries are vague, nonspecific and
duplicative.
With this background, the Court makes the following determinations.
Mr. Blau’s billing rate of $450/hour is found to be reasonable. Ms. Leonard’s rate is
$375/hour. She is a lawyer with 15 years of experience. Mr. Manes acted as local counsel for the
case. He is an attorney with 1.5 years of practice and charged an hourly rate of $325. A review of
the Attorney Fees Chart attached to Plaintiff’s Motion indicates that attorneys with 11 to 15
years of experience charge between $260 and $335 per hour. The chart further indicates that a
lawyer with less than 2 years experience charges rates ranging from $165-$190 per hour. This
chart is the fee schedule used by Community Legal Services in Philadelphia. While legal
services rates may be lower, Philadelphia rates are clearly higher. In addition, the undersigned
has practiced law in this community for 20 years and, based upon that and a review of fee
petitions during her 10 years on the bench, is aware of what the billing rates are in the Pittsburgh
legal community. Based upon all of this information, the Court will lower Ms. Leonard's rate to
$335 per hour and Mr. Manes is rate to $175 per hour. 1
Because Plaintiff did not prevail on either the collective or class-action claims, the Court
is cutting by 50% the 8 hours spent in preparing the complaint. The Court declines to cut any
additional time because the work which was performed was still required to pursue the individual
claim on which Plaintiff prevailed. The Court will further make adjustments to Mr. Blau's time
billed on 9/4/13, 10/10/13, and 2/7/14 because this time is viewed as excessive given the nature
1
Although Mr. Manes advised the Court during argument that he regularly charges clients the rate of $325 per hour
the Court is factoring in the reality that he was local counsel charged with reviewing filings to ensure that they
complied with the local rules and making sure that pleadings were properly filed. His role in the case was not one
which required an extensive amount of legal experience and knowledge in the subject matter.
of the case. Finally, Mr. Blau billed a total of 6.3 hours to prepare for four depositions.
Defendants argue that this time is excessive. The Court does not believe the time itself is
excessive but the depositions were focused primarily on establishing the collective and class
claims which were not pursued. Therefore, this time will be cut by 50%. On October 30, 2013
Ms. Leonard billed for ECF filing. This is an administrative function and will be deleted. Finally,
the Court has determined that Mr. Manes hours should be cut from 19.7 to 15 as some of the
time he billed was duplicative. Based upon the above, the Court believes that the following
amount of attorney’s fees are to be awarded to Plaintiff's counsel in this case.
Blau: 38.8 hours @ $450/hr…………………………..$17,460
Leonard: 4.6 hours @$335/hr…………………………$ 1,541
Manes: 15 hours @&175/hr…………………………...$ 2,625
Total
$20,239
And Order consistent with this opinion will be entered.
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
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?