Agudath Israel of America v. Hochul, 1:20-cv-04834

Plaintiffs (Agudath Israel and affiliated congregations/leaders) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging New York Executive Order 202.68 capacity limits on houses of worship and sought emergency injunctive relief in October 2020.
The district court initially denied emergency relief; plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit and sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court enjoined enforcement of the Order’s fixed-capacity limits pending appeal, holding fixed limits trigger strict scrutiny; the Second Circuit later directed injunctions against fixed limits and remand on percentage limits.
On remand the district court entered a permanent injunction (Feb. 9, 2021) enjoining both fixed and percentage capacity limits for houses of worship in affected zones.
Plaintiffs moved for attorney’s fees and costs under § 1988 seeking $921,862.50 in fees (Troutman and Becket counsel) and $13,420.70 in costs; the Court applied the lodestar method, reduced requested rates and hours for various reasons, and adjusted billing for specific tasks.
The court awarded $368,839.44 to Troutman and $77,682.50 to Becket (total $446,521.94) and denied the costs request without prejudice for lack of documentary support.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to fees	Plaintiffs prevailed and are entitled to § 1988 fees.	Did not dispute prevailing-party status.	Plaintiffs are prevailing parties and eligible for reasonable fees.
Reasonable hourly rates	Counsel seek substantially above‑district rates due to case novelty, emergency, and Supreme Court work.	Requested rates exceed prevailing E.D.N.Y. market; propose much lower rates.	Court set reduced, case-specific rates (e.g., Schick $550/hr, Tseytlin $500/hr; Rienzi/Rassbach $600/hr, etc.).
Reasonable hours / billing practices	Submitted contemporaneous time records totaling 1,221.6 hours across firms.	Hours excessive: block billing, duplication, top-heavy staffing, paralegal tasks billed at attorney rates, time on unsuccessful or redundant tasks.	Court reduced hours/rates: 5% block-billing adjustment (parties), task-specific cuts (proofreading, collating at paralegal rates), percentage reductions for certain overbilling and procedural noncompliance; specific dollar deductions applied.
Costs claimed	Sought $13,420.70 for court reporters, filings, research, printing.	Did not contest amounts but procedural rules require documentation.	Costs denied without prejudice for lack of affidavit/bills; plaintiffs invited to refile with proper documentation.

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method and that prevailing party may recover reasonable attorney’s fees)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (what constitutes a prevailing party for fee awards)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63 (U.S. 2020) (fixed attendance limits on houses of worship trigger strict scrutiny; emergency injunction granted)
Agudath Israel of Am. v. Cuomo, 983 F.3d 620 (2d Cir. 2020) (Second Circuit reversed/ remanded regarding fixed limits and directed strict-scrutiny review of percentage limits)
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cnty. of Albany & Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (factors and standards for determining reasonable hourly rates)
Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosp. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (district court discretion in fee determinations)
Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (limits on enhancements to the lodestar)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2011) (trial courts need not achieve auditing perfection; aim for rough justice in fee awards)
Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (2d Cir. 2017) (lodestar should be sufficient to attract competent counsel)
Lilly v. City of New York, 934 F.3d 222 (2d Cir. 2019) (extraordinary circumstances may justify lodestar adjustment but tightly constrained)
Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (factors for adjusting lodestar)