844 F. Supp. 2d 504
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs sued Franklin First Financial, Ltd. under FLSA and New York Labor Law for damages and fees;
- Parties settled damages but disputed statutory attorneys’ fees;
- Plaintiffs seek $253,943.45 for fees and costs;
- Court applies lodestar method to determine reasonable fees;
- Court grants $196,959.45 in fees and costs after adjustments;
- Several preliminary notices: travel time, client retainer history, and continuation of fee petition issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under FLSA and NY Labor Law | Plaintiffs rely on prevailing-party entitlement to fees | Defendant disputes quantum of fees (rates and hours) | Yes; fees allowed but adjusted per lodestar |
| Are the proposed hourly rates reasonable for the district | Schaffer/Fitapelli rate $350; Gitig $225 justified by market | Rates too high given experience and case complexity | Schaffer/Fitapelli rate retained; Gitig reduced to $175 |
| Should Gitig’s hourly rate be reduced | Gitig’s rate within associate range | No evidence clients paid $225 | Gitig rate reduced to $175 |
| Are the billed hours reasonably expended and non-duplicative | Hours are necessary; detailed billing provided | Many hours excessive or duplicative | 20% reduction for duplicative/excessive hours applied |
| Should the court apply travel-time and other adjustments to fees | Travel time billed at 50% rate consistent with circuit practice | Not contested explicitly | Travel and related adjustments upheld; total awarded reflects adjustments |
Key Cases Cited
- Healey v. Leavitt, 485 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2007) (lodestar method; objective, market-rate-based fees)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar principle; reasonable attorney’s fees)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (case-specific variables for reasonableness in rates)
- Allende v. Unitech Design, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 509 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (district court rates and adjustments in fee awards)
- Polk v. New York State Dep’t of Corr. Servs., 722 F.2d 23 (2d Cir. 1983) (prevailing market rate for attorneys)