Gamero v. Koodo Sushi Corp.
328 F. Supp. 3d 165
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Three plaintiffs sued Koodo Sushi and Michelle Koo for unpaid wages under the FLSA and NYLL; bench trial held Oct. 2016; findings issued Sept. 28, 2017 (Gamero I).
- The Court found limited recovery for each plaintiff (totaling $24,937.12 exclusive of prejudgment interest) after discrediting portions of plaintiffs' testimony and accepting much of defendant Koo's records.
- Plaintiffs moved for recovery of "reasonable" attorney's fees and costs under the NYLL; defendants opposed and sought a substantial reduction based on limited recovery and alleged overbilling.
- The court applied the lodestar method, evaluated reasonable hourly rates and hours expended, and reviewed contemporaneous time records, exercising discretion to exclude excessive or duplicative time.
- The court reduced some specific time entries (e.g., complaint drafting, certain trial prep and deposition time, duplicated entries) and set hourly rates lower than plaintiffs requested for several attorneys.
- Because of limited success relative to plaintiffs' original demands and concerns about counsel’s preparation/allowing perjured testimony, the court reduced the lodestar by 35% and awarded $20,462 in attorney’s fees and $5,665.06 in costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate hourly rates | Requested $450 (partner Faillace), $375 (associates Clark & Gutierrez), $350 (Santos) | Rates excessive; should be reduced to prevailing market | Court set Faillace $400; Clark $300; Gutierrez $250; Santos $250 |
| Reasonable hours billed | Submitted contemporaneous time records itemizing work | Many entries excessive, duplicative, vague; seek reductions and across-the-board cut | Court reduced specific entries (e.g., complaint, trial prep, duplicative deposition/trial time) to arrive at reasonable hours |
| Reduction for limited success | Fees should follow lodestar without disproportionate reduction | Fees should be reduced to reflect Plaintiffs' limited recovery | Court reduced lodestar by 35% due to limited success and counsel’s deficiencies, yielding final fee award of $20,462 |
| Recovery of costs | Sought $5,665.06 for filing fee, transcripts, interpreters | Defendants challenged some costs | Court awarded full requested costs: $5,665.06 |
Key Cases Cited
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. Cty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir.) (lodestar / market rate inquiry guidance)
- Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir.) (lodestar calculation principles)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (Sup. Ct.) (reasonableness and inducement of counsel)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct.) (degree of success and fee reductions)
- Barfield v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.) (discretion to reduce fees for limited success)
- City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (Sup. Ct.) (fee awards need not be proportional to damages)
- LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748 (2d Cir.) (attorney-fee recoverable costs)