Cidoni v. Woodhaven Nursing Home
2:21-cv-03654
E.D.N.YMar 10, 2023Background:
- Plaintiff Theresa Cidoni filed an age-discrimination suit June 29, 2021 and engaged in protracted discovery disputes with Defendants.
- Plaintiff moved to compel (July Motion to Compel); the Court granted the motion on October 5, 2022 and directed Plaintiff to submit proof of costs and fees.
- Plaintiff filed a fee application seeking $11,220 (20.4 hours at $550/hr) for work through the fee application; Defendants did not oppose the second application.
- Defense counsel repeatedly appeared without being admitted in the district, causing adjourned status conferences on October 11 and November 30, 2022.
- The Court concluded Plaintiff was entitled to recover fees for (1) the successful motion to compel and (2) expenses caused by the adjourned conferences, but rejected requests for additional sanctions outside prior orders.
- Applying lodestar principles, the Court reduced the hourly rate to $450 and awarded fees for 9.2 hours (8.2 documented + 1 additional hour for conferences), totaling $4,140.00.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees for successful motion to compel under Rule 37(a)(5) | Cidoni: prevailing on motion entitles her to costs and fees incurred in bringing the motion | Defendants previously opposed; on refiled application they did not oppose | Court: Awarded costs/fees for the granted motion (per Oct. 5, 2022 order) |
| Entitlement to fees for wasted status conferences under Rule 16(f) | Cidoni: defense counsel’s failure to be admitted caused adjournments and fees; seeks reimbursement | Defendants offered no justification that noncompliance was substantially justified | Court: Awarded fees for the October 11 and November 30 adjourned conferences |
| Reasonableness of hourly rate | Cidoni: billed at $550/hr (market-based firm rate) | Defendants: (implicit) requested reduction via opposition to first application; Court reviews forum rates | Court: Applied forum rule; set reasonable partner rate at $450/hr for this district |
| Reasonableness of hours billed | Cidoni: submitted contemporaneous records reflecting 8.2 hours plus annotated 1 hour for conferences (total 9.2) | Defendants: previously opposed first application; no renewed opposition to second | Court: Found 9.2 hours reasonable (8.2 supported by records; granted 1 hour for conferences) |
Key Cases Cited
- Weyant v. Okst, 198 F.3d 311 (2d Cir. 1999) (attorney-fee awards require documentation of contemporaneous time records)
- Millea v. Metro-N. R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (lodestar is presumptively reasonable fee)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable hourly rate based on market rates for similar services)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (forum rule and factors for reasonable rates)
- Vincent v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 651 F.3d 299 (2d Cir. 2011) (district court's broad discretion in fee determinations)
- Quarantino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 1999) (court may exclude excessive or redundant hours)
- Scott v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2010) (requirement to submit contemporaneous time records)