Jackson et al v. Estelle Place, LLC et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Motion/Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/8/09. (tfitz, )

IN THE UNITED

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

FOR THE

Alexandria Division

H".-'

'' ·--

;

TANYA JACKSON,

et

Plaintiffs,

)

)
V.
ESTELLE PLACE, LLC, et al..

cu
No. l:08cv984 (LMB/TRJ)

) )
)

Defendants.
MEMORANDUM

)
)

OPINION

Before the Court is
Attorneys' Fees and Costs

the plaintiffs'
[42]

Petition for Award of

in which plaintiffs seek an award

of $86,471.00 in attorneys'

fees and $1,710.94

for the costs

incurred in litigating and settling this civil action.
Defendants have opposed the amount sought, arguing that it is

excessive and unreasonable.

For the following reasons,

the

plaintiffs will be awarded $36,000.00
$407.73
I.

in attorneys'

fees and

in costs.

Background

Plaintiffs Tanya Jackson,
Isaac Asare, Sharon Doss,

Michael Agyeman,

Thomas George,

and Courtney Collins brought this

action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
§§ 2 01, et seq.,

("FLSA"),

29 U.S.C.

to recover overtime wages owed to them by the

defendants,

Estelle Place LLC,

Jireh Place LLC,

Our Place LLC,

Destiny Place LLC,

Debra Roundtree,

and Mary Bell.

Defendants

are providers of group home services to disabled persons.
Although each group home was managed by a different limited

liability corporation,

for the purposes of

settling this

litigation,

the defendants agreed to include all of the hours for the various defendants in

worked by the plaintiffs

determining appropriate compensation under the FLSA.
also agreed to characterize one plaintiff,
employee to whom overtime wages were due.

Defendants
as an exempt

Agyeman,

The Complaint,

which also included claims of breach of
was filed on September 22, 2008.

contract and quantum meruit,

Defendants did not file a motion to dismiss.

On December 5,

2008,

plaintiffs filed a Motion to Allow Notice to Similarly

Situated Employees,

which the defendants opposed.

After the
2008, the

Court granted the plaintiffs'

motion on December 19,

parties requested a stay of the proceedings while they negotiated a settlement of the claims. The parties reached a confidential

settlement before any extensive discovery or motions practice had to been conducted. The settlement resolved the plaintiffs' FLSA

claims,

except for the issue of attorneys'

fees and costs,

which

the parties agreed to submit to the Court.
approved on February 23, II. Discussion 2009.

The settlement was

Pursuant to the FLSA,

a prevailing party is entitled to an

award of reasonable attorneys'

fees and costs.

See 29 U.S.C.

§ 216(b).

Because the parties have agreed that plaintiffs are

the prevailing parties under 29 U.S.C.

§ 216(b),

the plaintiffs

are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys'
However, and costs
F.2d 273,

fees and costs.
the fees 902

plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that they seek are reasonable.
277 (4th Cir. 1990). fee, the

See Plyler v.

Evatt.

In arriving at a reasonable attorneys'

Court

first

must determine the lodestar figure by multiplying the number of
reasonable hours expended times a reasonable hourly rate. See

Robinson v.
2009).

Equifax Info.

Servs..

560 F.3d 235,

243

{4th Cir.

In determining the number of reasonable hours expended
the Court considers the twelve

and a reasonable hourly rate,

factors set out in Barber v.

Kimbrell's

Inc.

Id.;

see also

Barber v.
1978).

Kimbrell's Inc..

577 F.2d 216,

226 n.28

(4th Cir.

These Kimbrell

factors are:

(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney's opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney's expectations at the
outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations

imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney;

(10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between
attorney and client;
similar cases.

and

(12)

attorneys'

fees awards in

577

F.2d at 226 n.28.

After deducting any fees

that resulted

from time spent on unsuccessful claims,

the Court evaluates the and arrives at a

"degree of success enjoyed by the plaintiff"

final

reasonable

fee.

See

Grissom v.

The Mills

Corp..

54 9

F.3d

313,

321

(4th Cir.

2008)

(internal quotations and citations

omitted).

A.

Reasonable

Hourly Rate

Plaintiffs were
Employment Law Group,

represented in
P.C.

this

lawsuit by The
DC and seek an award of

of Washington,

attorneys'

fees

for 362.3

hours

of work performed by two

principals,

an associate,

a legal assistant,

and a private
$410 for principals

investigator.

The hourly rates billed were:

Nicholas Woodfield and Robert Scott Oswald, have between 11 and 19 years of experience,

attorneys who each $225 for an associate

with 1 to 3 years of experience,
legal assistant and a private

and $13 0

for work performed by a
In total, plaintiffs

investigator.

seek

$86,471.00

in attorneys'

fees.

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the hourly rate
sought by each of
560 F.3d at

their attorneys
To meet

is reasonable.

See Robinson.

243-45.

this burden,

plaintiffs must provide

not only affidavits of their own attorneys,

but also

"specific

evidence of the prevailing market rates in the relevant community
for the type of work for which
(quoting Plvler. 902 F.2d at

[they]

seek[]

an award."

Id.

277).

Plaintiffs support

their contention that

the hourly rates

they seek are consistent with the prevailing market rates district with the affidavits of Mr.

in this

Woodfield and two well-

respected employment lawyers who practice in the Eastern District

of Virginia,
Ms.

Patricia Smith and Elaine Charlson Bredehoft.
Bredehoft stated that they believed The

Both

Smith and Ms.

Employment Law Group,

P.C. was charging the prevailing market

rate for lawyers with the same amount of experience as Mr.
Woodfield and Mr. Oswald. However, both of those affidavits, as

well of that of Mr.

Woodfield,

consistently refer to and rely

upon the Laffey Matrix,

which the Fourth Circuit has held is not

sufficient evidence of the prevailing rates in Northern Virginia.
See Grissom. 549 F.3d at 323.

In response,

the defendants argue that

the rates

charged by

The Employment Law Group exceed the prevailing market rate in the
Eastern District of Virginia.
defendants

This argument is meritorious.
the Laffey Matrix, which was

The

correctly contend that

developed in the District of Columbia,

does not accurately

reflect the prevailing rates in Northern Virginia,
case was litigated. See Grissom. 549 F.3d at 323.

where this
Defendants

also provide the affidavits of Edward Rosenthal,

lead defense

counsel,

and Edward Lee Isler,

an extremely experienced Northern

Virginia employment lawyer,

both of which provide strong support
in this district

for the conclusion that prevailing hourly rates

are significantly less than the hourly rates plaintiffs'
charged in this civil action.

counsel

Of particular significance is the

hourly rate generally charged by lead defense counsel Edward

Rosenthal,

founder and managing partner of

Rich Rosenthal

Manitta

Dzubin & Kroeger,

LLP,

a law firm which plaintiffs'

counsel

twice

recognized as

"one of the preeminent

law firms"

in the Eastern

District of Virginia.
Mr. Rosenthal,

See Mem.

in Supp.
of

of Plfs.'

Pet.

11,

15.

who has more years

experience

than either Mr.

Woodfield and Mr.
per hour,

Oswald,

avers

that he
rate

regularly charges
to $325 per hour

$375
for this

although he

reduced that

case.

He also avers

that,

in his

experience,

attorneys

in the

Eastern District of Virginia with experience and competence

equivalent to that of Mr.
$275

Woodfield and Mr.

Oswald charge between
to an

and $350 per hour for similar cases,

associates with one to $195

three years of experience are normally billed at $165 hour, and legal assistants

are usually billed at between $50 and

$80 an hour.
assistants at

In fact,
$55

Mr.

Rosenthal's

law firm bills

legal

an hour. the parties,

After carefully reviewing the submissions of

the Court finds that the rates requested by the plaintiffs do not
reflect the prevailing market rates in the Eastern District of

Virginia.

As

the Fourth Circuit has recently noted,

the Laffey and

Matrix does not control

in the Eastern District of Virginia,

plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing "that the Laffev
Matrix ... is a reliable indicator of the hourly rates of
[Alexandria], Virginia. ..." See

litigation attorneys in

Robinson.

560

F.3d at 245

(quoting Grissom,

549 F.3d at 323).

Moreover,

courts

in this district have repeatedly recognized that D.C. are usually higher than
See,
(E.D.

hourly rates charged in Washington,
hourly rates
e.g., Am.

charged in the Eastern District of Virginia.
EPA, 138 F. Supp. 2d 722, 740-42

Canoe Ass'n v.

Va.

2001).

Furthermore,

the affidavits provided by the

plaintiffs conflict with the affidavits provided by the
defendants as to what constitutes the prevailing market rates for

experienced attorneys,

associates,

and legal assistants

in this

district.
rates

For these reasons,

the Court finds that the hourly
the

suggested by the defendants more accurately reflect

prevailing market rates in Northern Virginia and will reduce the hourly rate to $350 to for Mr. Woodfield and Mr. Oswald, $170 for

the associate,
not

and $60

for the legal assistant.
investigator.1
Expended

The Court will

award any fees
B.

for the private

Reasonable Number of Hours

Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for a total of 362.3 hours
expended by the attorneys and staff of The Employment Law Group,

P.C.
by Mr.

This figure is compromised of 123.9 hours of work performed
Woodfield, 11.5 hours performed by Mr. Oswald, 16.3 hours

performed by associate Katie Araus,

91.9 hours performed by a

for the private investigator,
hourly rate is

1 Although the defendants did not dispute the hourly rate
reasonable because this entire fee is

the Court has not determined what

litigation, the need for an investigator is highly questionable and in this Court's experience has not been sought by a civil
litigant in a fee petition.

unreasonable.

Given the broad discovery tools available in civil

legal assistant,

and 106.0 hours performed by a private

investigator.
sum of
AAC,

Plaintiffs have also requested reimbursement for a

9.1 hours billed by unidentified persons with the initials
and JMZ.2

DLS,

Defendants argue that the hours expended on this litigation
were excessive considering the type and size of plaintiffs'

claims and ask that these hours be significantly reduced because
they were unnecessary and unwarranted. The defendants contend

that plaintiffs should have sought an early settlement given the
modest monetary claims at issue.
of hours that plaintiffs

They also object to the number
litigation by

incurred early in the

preparing discovery requests even before an initial pretrial conference was held, and they also specifically challenge seven

categories of fees as unreasonable,
the successful claims.

unnecessary,
include

or unrelated to
charges for:

These categories

1)

work performed to evaluate the claims before plaintiffs' 2) background checks run on

counsel agreed to be retained,

plaintiffs and defendants,
issues,

3)

legal research into retaliation
4) other

which were not alleged in the Complaint,
5)

research unrelated to the FLSA claims,

case evaluation

meetings,

6)

time spent on efforts to recruit other potential

individuals because the plaintiffs did not provide any

2 The award will not include the hours billed by these three

information about the qualifications or experience of these individuals, and, therefore, the Court is unable to determine a
reasonable hourly rate for these
8

individuals.

plaintiffs,

who did not

join the lawsuit,

and 7)

work that

appears duplicative or lacks
its relevance to the

sufficient description to evaluate

civil action.

Hours

that are excessive,

redundant,

or unnecessary should

not be included in a fee award.
U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983).

See Hensley v.
"hours . .

Eckerhart,

461

In addition, client are .

that are not

properly billed to one's
one's adversary pursuant fees

not properly billed to
Id. that are

to statutory authority."

Furthermore,

should not be awarded for hours

duplicative or where it is unclear why the hours were expended.
The defendants' seven specific objections have merit.

First,

the

fees

charged for running background checks on the

parties and performing additional research on the defendants were
unnecessary to litigate the FLSA claims,
reasonably expended. Second, the fees

and,

thus,
to

were not
case

related

the

evaluation meeting on July 18,

2008 were also unnecessary and

redundant.

At this meeting,

six attorneys billed 1.5 hours each
claims. These

"to evaluate the merits"

of the plaintiffs'

relatively straightforward FLSA claims

did not require such a

meeting or the hours spent preparing for it.

Third,

the fees

related to The Employment Law Group's examination of the

plaintiffs'

claims before the Group was retained will not be

included because a private client would not be charged for those
expenses. See Hensley. 461 U.S. at 433-34. Finally, fees that

the attorneys billed for time spent researching a retaliation

claim and trying to recruit other plaintiffs will not be awarded
because no retaliation claim was alleged in the Complaint and additional plaintiffs did not join the lawsuit. These reductions

reduce the total number of hours reasonably expended from 123.9
to 109.7 hours for Mr. Oswald, from 16.3 Woodfield, from 11.5 to 7.9 hours for Mr.

to 7.4 hours

for the associate,

and from 91.9

to 89.7 hours for the

legal assistant.

The hours expended by the

three unidentified individuals will not be awarded.
Only one of the The the Kimbrell factors, "the amount involved and the fee.

results obtained,"

requires the

further adjustment of skill required

time and labor expended, services,

to properly and all

perform the legal the experience,

the customary fee and ability of

for like work,

reputation,

the attorney are and hours

adequately accounted for in the hourly rate plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' attorneys have

awarded to

significant experience

litigating employment

law cases,

but this civil

action did not

present particularly challenging legal or factual questions. Moreover, nothing about the relatively straightforward FLSA
litigation before this

claims presented by plaintiffs and the Court requires

further adjustment based on the attorneys'

opportunity costs,
litigation, the time

the attorneys'

expectations at the outset of
or the undesirability of Finally, neither

limitations legal

imposed,

case within the

community.

10

plaintiffs'

attorneys'

one time representation of the plaintiffs
in similar cases support increasing or

nor attorneys'

fee awards

decreasing the award.3
Lastly, the Court has considered the amount involved and the

results obtained in evaluating the reasonableness of
See Farrar v. Hobby. 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992)

the fees.

{"MT]he most

critical *is

factor'

in determining the reasonableness of a fee award obtained.'"). In the end, only six less

the degree of success joined this

plaintiffs

lawsuit and their total recovery was

than $10,000 before being doubled under the liquidated damage
provision of the FLSA.
for less than $1,000

Moreover,

of the six awards,

four were

before doubling as plaintiff Agyeman

received the largest recovery because of the misclassification.
An attorneys' fee should bear some reasonable relationship to the
Given the modest value of further reduce the to the lodestar

recovery of plaintiffs. plaintiffs' claims,

the Court will

figure by approximately 25 percent to $36,000.00.

For these reasons, figure of $36,000.00
subtract fees

the Court determines It

that a lodestar

is reasonable.

is unnecessary to
unrelated claims or to

incurred for unsuccessful,

3 Plaintiffs cite to attorneys'
two other FLSA actions

fee awards they received in
to support their

in this district

Petition. However, plaintiffs do not provide any information about the nature of those claims or the amount of discovery or motions practice conducted in those actions. Therefore, it is impossible for the Court to satisfactorily compare those awards with the award in this case.
11

award only a percentage of all of their claims 549 F.3d 333,
Costs

this

amount because plaintiffs Cf. 2002). Johnson v.

settled

for full value. 337 (4th Cir.

City of

Aiken.
C.

Finally,

the plaintiffs

request

that

they be awarded

$1,710.94
costs,

in costs.

The defendants oppose
these expenditures
legal

$1,303.21 of

these

arguing that

resulted from unnecessary

background checks, was not alleged,

research on the retaliation claim that for meetings with potential

meal expenses

plaintiffs who did not join the lawsuit,
unnecessary meetings with clients.

and mileage

for

All of

the defendants' either unrelated to
For these reasons,

objections have merit.
or unnecessary for the only $407.73 D. will be

These expenses were
successful claims.

awarded. Position of the Defendants

Financial

In their Memorandum in Response

to Plaintiffs'

Petition,

the

defendants raised the issue of the defendants' and observed that the attorneys'
bankrupt these Defendants." Mem.

financial position "threaten[]
Although the

fees requested
in Resp. 21.

to

defendants'

memorandum did not

specifically request a reduction

of

the award based on the defendants'
attached as exhibits

inability to pay,

the

letters

included the defendants'

financial

information and asked the Court circumstances.

for leniency or to consider their the defendants is not

The financial position of
12

one of

the

factors fee.

to be

considered in arriving at a reasonable Grissom. 549 P.3d at 321.

attorneys'

See,

e.g.,

Accordingly,
III.

the

fee will not be further reduced.

Conclusion

For all

these reasons,

the

Court

finds

that a total award of

$36,000.00

in attorneys'

fees and $4 07.73

in costs is reasonable

and will be awarded by an Order to be issued with this Memorandum
Opinion.

Entered this

Q

day of May,

2009.

Alexandria,

Virginia

/s/

Leonie M. Brinkema

United States District Judge

13