Finch v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services
1:04-cv-01668-SAS-JCF
S.D.N.Y.Mar 5, 2012Background
- Plaintiffs alleged due process violations arising from long delays in administrative hearings for challenges to SCR listings of indicated child abuse/maltreatment.
- The named plaintiffs certified a class, later divided into Subclass A and Subclass B, with settlement resolving most claims.
- Subclass B involved a separate settlement and monitoring, with an initial monitoring cap of $50,000.
- Subclass A’s remaining claims were resolved by a State Settlement Agreement and final court approval in 2011.
- Plaintiffs seek §1988 attorneys’ fees and costs totaling roughly $787,990, with reductions for time related to unsuccessful claims and overlapping work.
- Judge conducted a lodestar-based analysis and awarded a reduced fee and full costs, finalizing total awards at $613,694.93 in fees and $17,014.05 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of lead counsel’s hourly rate | Hoffman’s $550 rate justified by experience | Rate should be capped (e.g., $450) given market comparisons | Hoffman’s rate set at $450/hour |
| Reduction for unsuccessful claims | All hours reasonably expended should be compensated | Unsuccessful claims justify significant reductions | Forty percent deduction for unsuccessful claims applied; adjusted accordingly |
| Overlap/cross-use of hours across claims | Hours overlapped across Subclass A and City claims should be compensable | Overlap should be pruned to avoid double-counting | Reductions applied for drafting the complaint, city counsel communications, and other overlapping tasks |
| Monitoring fees for Subclass B | Monitoring work should be compensated beyond cap | Cap at $50,000 applies | Awarded $50,000 for Subclass B monitoring, with $639 costs |
| Costs recoverable under §1988 | Out-of-pocket costs recoverable as taxable costs | Costs limited to reasonable, necessary items | Costs awarded in full: $17,014.05 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar-based fee award; most critical factor is degree of success)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; avoid windfalls)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (establishes objective hours and market-rate framework for fees)
- Heng Chan v. Sung Yue Tung Corp., No. 03 Civ. 6048, 2007 WL 1373118 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (informs rate skepticism for unusually complex civil rights cases)
- Davis v. City of New York, No. 10 Civ. 699, 2011 WL 4946243 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (illustrates comparative rates for senior attorneys in civil rights matters)
- Gierlinger v. Gleason, 160 F.3d 858 (2d Cir. 1998) (assists in determining reasonable hourly rates and market comparators)
- Barfield v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizes overall fee-reduction considerations and efficiency)
- Kassim v. City of Schenectady, 415 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2005) (proportionality concerns in fee determinations)