621 F. App'x 19
2d Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (former employees) sued Capala Brothers and its principals under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid regular and overtime wages; defendants counterclaimed for various torts against some plaintiffs.
- After multiple pretrial rulings (class certification, decertification attempts, discovery disputes), a jury in 2013 found for Plaintiffs on the wage claims and willfulness and awarded damages; district court later entered judgment including liquidated damages and prejudgment interest.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel then sought $887,765.85 in attorneys’ fees and $80,324.11 in costs; Magistrate Judge Gold recommended a substantially reduced award of $514,284.00 (fees) and $68,294.50 (costs), mainly denying fees for time spent on counterclaims and a trial specialist.
- The district court adopted the Report and Recommendation in full; defendants appealed the fee award (including the award of expert fees under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)).
- On appeal, Plaintiffs conceded $5,730 in fees had been erroneously awarded to work defending counterclaims; the Second Circuit affirmed most of the fee award, reversed the $5,730 award, and vacated/ remanded the expert fee award for further consideration whether NYLL permits it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees and costs (amount/reasonableness) | Fee request justified by hours incurred; much of cost caused by defendants’ obstruction; fees reasonable given success at trial | Fees excessive relative to damages; should be reduced for inefficiency and partial failures; some fees were for defending counterclaims | Majority of award reasonable; district court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees for affirmative claims; reversed only as to $5,730 conceded error |
| Whether hours billed for work on affirmative claims were reasonable | Hours for affirmative litigation were reasonably incurred and should be reimbursed | Some hours billed to affirmative claims actually were for defending counterclaims or were excessive | District court’s finding that remaining hours were reasonable upheld; conceded $5,730 reversed |
| Whether expert fees were properly awarded under FLSA § 216(b) | Counsel sought expert fees as costs recoverable under § 216(b) | § 216(b) does not authorize expert fees as costs | Second Circuit held § 216(b) cannot support expert fee award; vacated $10,425 in expert costs and remanded to assess NYLL authority for such fees |
| Standard of review for fee determination | N/A (procedural) | N/A | Court reviews for abuse of discretion and applied relevant precedents (Johnson factors, Arbor Hill, Hensley); Magistrate’s factual findings adopted after de novo review by district court and affirmed except as noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method: reasonable hours × reasonable rate; no precise formula)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (use case-specific variables and Johnson factors in setting reasonable rates)
- Johnson v. Ga. Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (factors for fee reasonableness)
- Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev. Inc., 754 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for fee awards)
- Millea v. Metro-North R.R., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- CARCO GROUP, Inc. v. Maconachy, 718 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2013) (courts have wide latitude in fee assessments)