De Paredes v. Zen Nails Studio LLC, 8:20-cv-02432

Plaintiffs Flor I. Arriaza De Paredes and Francisco Hernan Tejada Lopez worked as cleaning staff at Zen Nails Studio from 2017–2020 and sued owners and the salon under the FLSA and Maryland Wage and Hour Law for unpaid overtime and, at times, unpaid minimum wage.
After a five-day bench trial, the court found for Plaintiffs and awarded $29,864.36 to De Paredes and $38,327.28 to Lopez (net Lopez recovery $37,127.28 after defendants’ $1,200 counterclaim), totaling $66,991.64 in damages.
Plaintiffs’ counsel (Melehy & Associates) sought $343,189.85 in attorney’s fees and $40,300.44 in costs under the FLSA and MWHL fee-shifting provisions.
Plaintiffs requested hourly rates above the District of Maryland Local Rules ranges; counsel defended those rates as market-based and reflecting experience and delay in payment.
The court reduced requested rates to the high end of the Local Rules ranges, trimmed billed hours for duplication/excess, reclassified some paralegal interpreting work as taxable costs at a reduced rate, and cut the lodestar for partial success.
Final award: $167,115.49 in attorney’s fees and $34,234.37 in costs; motion granted in part and denied in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonable hourly rates	Counsel’s standard market rates and experience justify rates above Local Rules	Rates are excessive compared to Local Rules and case complexity	Court limited rates to the high end of Local Rules: Omar & Suvita $475/hr, Balashov $300/hr, paralegals $150/hr
Reasonable hours billed	Plaintiffs already made voluntary reductions to billed hours and seek compensation for ~1,132 hours	Hours are excessive, duplicative, clerical, and include interpreter time billed as fee hours	Court made additional percentage reductions (discovery 25%, trial prep 30%, trial attendance limited to one attorney + half paralegal, fee petition 50%); paralegal interpreter time moved to costs at $100/hr
Lodestar adjustment for degree of success	Full lodestar is appropriate because Plaintiffs prevailed on primary claims	Reduce fee award to reflect partial recovery and overreaching in claimed hours	Plaintiffs recovered ~60% of sought damages; court reduced lodestar by 35%, yielding $167,115.49 in fees
Recoverable costs	Requested $40,300.44 for filing, service, transcripts, interpreters, travel, meals, copying, etc.	Many items are not reasonable or taxable (meals, hotspot, rough drafts, excessive copying, mileage)	Court disallowed meal charges, hotspot, rough draft transcripts, $3,000 excess copying, mileage; awarded $34,234.37 in costs

McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81 (4th Cir. 2013) (lodestar method and Johnson factors for fee calculation)
Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235 (4th Cir. 2009) (prevailing market rate established by local attorney affidavit)
Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (enumeration of factors for fee awards)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2011) (fee awards aim for rough justice, not auditing perfection)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded)
Mercer v. Duke Univ., 401 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 2005) (compare damages sought to damages awarded when assessing fee reductions)
Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. Caperton, 31 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 1994) (use of community market rates)
Hyatt v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 2002) (limits on recovery for paralegal work; paralegal tasks recoverable only to extent traditionally performed by attorneys)