Estiverne v. Esernio-Jenssen, 908 F. Supp. 2d 305

OCFS received a report of suspected child abuse against Adult Plaintiffs on Nov 30, 2004 and referred it to ACS for investigation the same day.
On Jan 25, 2005 ACS designated the matter as an indicated report and gave 90 days to challenge the designation; plaintiffs did not timely challenge.
ACS withdrew its complaint in Sept 2005, but plaintiffs did not seek a challenge until Jan 6, 2006, and the request was denied as untimely; Antoine renewed in Feb 2006 when an OCFS inquiry occurred.
Plaintiffs filed suit Dec 13, 2006 alleging due process violations for lack of a name-clearing hearing; preliminary injunction was sought in June 2007.
On July 6, 2007 the court granted a preliminary injunction requiring a name-clearing hearing and precluding disclosure before resolution; on Aug 7, 2007 defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings and plaintiffs’ remaining claim was dismissed as moot.
Plaintiffs seek 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) attorney’s fees for drafting the injunctive portion, settlement negotiations, the injunction motion, and defense against the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs prevailed on the preliminary injunction	Antoine obtained relief via injunction.	No merit-based relief; moot case after hearing.	Yes; injunction conferred material alteration of legal relations.
Whether fees for settlement negotiations are recoverable	Settlement efforts yielded excellent results and should be compensable.	Fees for settlement negotiations should be limited or disallowed if not successful.	Fees for settlement negotiations awarded.
Whether fees for responding to the motion for judgment on the pleadings are recoverable	Response was intertwined with successful claims and necessary to pursue relief.	Post-injunction efforts beyond the injunction were moot and not recoverable.	Denied; fees for that unsuccessful response not awarded.
How to calculate the attorney’s fees	Requested $57,012.50 for 254.9 hours plus costs.	Reduce hours/rates to reflect reasonableness and partial success.	Awarded $31,878.87 in fees and $929.30 costs, totaling $32,808.17.

Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home v. W.Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (S. Ct. 2001) (prevailing party status requires a merit-based relief altering the legal relationship)
Haley v. Pataki, 106 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 1997) (merits-based assessment for fee awards after injunctions)
Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (S. Ct. 1986) (fully compensatory fees allowed for excellent results)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (reasonable hourly rate and hours; exhaustive factors for fee awards)
Valmonte v. Bane, 18 F.3d 992 (2d Cir. 1994) (name-clearing hearing as ripe before employer inquiry)
Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998) (across-the-board percentage reductions to trim hours)
Konits v. Karahalis, 409 Fed.Appx. 418 (2d Cir. 2011) (range of reasonable partner and associate hourly rates in EDNY)