Quiles Mejias et al v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al

Filing 188

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Denying without prejudice 157 "Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses." Plaintiffs may refile their motion not later than November 1, 2016. See document attached for details.Signed by Judge Pedro A. Delgado-Hernandez on 09/20/2016.(LMR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
NEYSHA QUILES MEJIAS, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.

CIVIL NO. 13-1880 (PAD)

BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO,
et al.
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Delgado-Hernández, District Judge.
Plaintiffs initiated this action on their behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals against Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, Popular Inc., Banco Popular North America
a/k/a Popular Community Bank, Carlos J. Vázquez, and Richard Carrion, claiming entitlement to
compensation for time worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and
the Puerto Rico Wage Payment Statute, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29 § 271, et seq. (Docket No. 3). The
parties settled the claims, but serious disagreement remains as to the proper award of attorney’s
fees and costs. Before the court is “Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorney Fees and Reimbursement of
Expenses” (Docket No. 157), which defendants opposed (Docket No. 164), plaintiffs replied
(Docket No. 169), and defendants surreplied (Docket No. 175). For the reasons discussed below,
the motion is DENIED, albeit without prejudice.
In the First Circuit, attorneys seeking fee awards must provide detailed contemporaneous
time records to avoid a substantial reduction in any award, or in egregious circumstances,
disallowance. Grendel’s Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 952 (1st Cir. 1984). No such records
were provided in support of the request for fees. Moreover, as to costs, a plaintiff must not only
show that the costs claimed are recoverable, but must provide sufficient detail and documentation

Quiles Mejías, et al. v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico. et al.
Civil No. 13-1880 (PAD)
Memorandum and Order
Page 2

regarding those costs in order to permit challenges by opposing counsel and meaningful review by
the court. Failure to submit supporting documentation verifying the costs incurred and the services
rendered can be grounds for denial of costs. Reis v. Thierry’s Inc., 2010 WL 1249076, *3 (S.D.Fla.
March 25, 2010). Plaintiffs did not submit any such documentation, nor explain the items for
which an award of costs is sought.1
In consequence, plaintiffs may refile their motion not later than November 1, 2016, with
contemporaneous time records describing the specific work done and time spent on each such
work the day it was performed by each of the attorneys on whose behalf payment of fees is
requested. If no such records exist, they should so certify, discussing with reference to relevant
caselaw, the effect of not having presented those records in the analysis of fees to be awarded.
Similarly, the motion must include an explanation of the items for which costs are requested, and
must be accompanied by documents (such as receipts), in support of the expenses claimed as
recoverable costs. The court will consider the request for fees and costs anew upon filing in
conformity with this Order.
SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 20th of September, 2016.
s/Pedro A. Delgado-Hernández
PEDRO A. DELGADO-HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge

For example, plaintiffs request $12,136.59 for “travel expense” without providing details about the travel or the
expenses incurred (Docket No. 157-3 at ¶ 8).
1