Hernandez v. Berlin Newington Associates, LLC
699 F. App'x 96
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Modesto Hernandez was the prevailing party in an ADA Title III suit against Berlin Newington Associates, LLC; the district court awarded $222,780.25 in attorney’s fees and expenses.
- Defendant appealed the fee award to the Second Circuit.
- Key contested items on appeal: whether certain hourly rates exceeded prevailing forum rates, whether billed hours were excessive, and whether travel expenses for out-of-state counsel were appropriate.
- The district court had reviewed detailed billing records, disallowed some vague or non-billable entries, and made a modest travel-expense award for essential court appearances.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the fee award for abuse of discretion and affirmed, but remanded for the district court to calculate a reasonable fee for defending the initial fee award on appeal and to consider delay enhancement and postjudgment interest in the first instance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate forum hourly rates | $375/hr for two attorneys is consistent with forum given experience and declarations | Rates exceed prevailing forum rates and are excessive | Affirmed: district court properly exercised discretion relying on experience, court familiarity, and local declarations (forum rule) |
| Number of hours billed | Hours reasonably expended; district court already excluded vague/non-billable entries | Hours were excessive, redundant, unnecessary | Affirmed: district court carefully scrutinized records and did not abuse discretion |
| Travel expenses for out-of-state counsel | Travel for essential court appearances was reasonable and modest | Local counsel could have handled appearances; travel expenses should be denied | Affirmed: modest travel award for essential appearances was not an abuse of discretion |
| Fees for defending fee award on appeal and ancillary relief | Hernandez seeks fees for defending fee award, delay enhancement, and postjudgment interest | — | Remanded: plaintiff entitled to appellate-defense fee; district court to calculate that fee and consider delay enhancement and postjudgment interest in the first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmons v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2009) (forum-rate rule for calculating presumptively reasonable fees)
- Farbotko v. Clinton Cty., 433 F.3d 204 (2d Cir. 2005) (use of district court familiarity and local affidavits to establish market rates)
- Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998) (exclude hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (hours must be reasonably expended in fee petitions)
- Kuzma v. IRS, 821 F.2d 930 (2d Cir. 1987) (out-of-pocket disbursements like travel are generally taxable)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (interpretation of ADA fee-shifting consistent with other fee statutes)
- Perez v. Westchester Cty. Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2009) (prevailing party may recover fees for defending an initial fee award on appeal)