Aguilar v. The Fence Guy, Inc.
2:17-cv-07412
E.D.N.YDec 2, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Jose Aguilar sued in Dec. 2017 under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid overtime against The Fence Guy, Inc., The Fence Guy of Long Island, LLC, and John Hausle.
- Defendants defaulted; Magistrate Judge Shields issued an R&R on May 20, 2019 recommending judgment for Plaintiff and allowed 14 days from entry of judgment to move for fees. The District Court adopted the R&R.
- Plaintiff timely moved for attorney’s fees and costs on June 3, 2019; the motion was unopposed and was referred for R&R on Dec. 2, 2019.
- Plaintiff sought $6,497.50 in fees (counsel rates: Romero $350/hr; Barnhorn $275/hr; total 24.4 hours) and $662.35 in costs (including $400 filing fee and $135 service fees).
- The Magistrate Judge applied the lodestar framework and forum-rate presumption and reviewed contemporaneous billing records and expense documentation.
- Recommendation: grant fees and costs in full — $6,497.50 (fees) + $662.35 (costs) = $7,159.85.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees under FLSA/NYLL | Aguilar entitled to fees and costs as prevailing plaintiff | No opposition (defendants defaulted) | Granted — prevailing plaintiff entitled to statutory fees and costs |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Seek $350 (Romero) and $275 (Barnhorn) as prevailing E.D.N.Y. rates | No opposition | Rates reasonable and within district norms |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | 24.4 total hours (24 by associate, 0.4 by partner) documented in contemporaneous records | No opposition | Hours reasonable for an FLSA default judgment matter |
| Recoverable costs and amount | $662.35 (filing, service, postage) necessary litigation expenses | No opposition | Costs are reasonable and supported; award recommended in full |
Key Cases Cited
- Millea v. Metro–N. R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (describing lodestar approach)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2007) (factors for determining reasonable rates/hours)
- Bergerson v. N.Y. State Office of Mental Health, Cent. N.Y. Psychiatric Ctr., 652 F.3d 277 (2d Cir. 2011) (forum-rate presumption)
- Simmons v. New York City Transit Authority, 575 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2009) (presumption favoring district hourly rates)
- Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998) (requirement for contemporaneous time records)
- Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir. 1994) (burden on fee applicant to justify hours)
- Matusiak v. Erie County Water Auth., 757 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2014) (district court’s broad discretion in awarding fees)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985) (failure to timely object to R&R waives further review)
- Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601 (2d Cir. 2008) (untimely objections to magistrate’s report operate as waiver)