Hugee v. Kimso Apartments, LLC
852 F. Supp. 2d 281
E.D.N.Y2012Background
- Hugee, a wheelchair user, requested structural modifications to her Kimso apartment and building; Kimso initially refused without expenses on Hugee’s part.
- Hanski, Hugee’s attorney, drafted a letter for modifications and filed suit after no timely landlord response.
- Kimso and Unithree’s executives allegedly obtained signed false settlement and firing letters from Hugee and co-plaintiffs to avoid paying attorney’s fees.
- Work was performed around late 2011, satisfying Hugee’s apartment modifications; Hugee settled for $500 in cash with no attorney’s fees provision.
- The court held two evidentiary hearings (Jan 5 and Jan 27, 2012) addressing settlement validity, false documents, and fee claims; Hugee did not appear at the first hearing.
- The court determined Hugee was a prevailing party under NYC Human Rights Law and awarded fees, travel, and costs despite the private nature of settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prevailing party under FHA | Hugee prevailed via settlement relief under Buckhannon catalyst theory. | Settlement without judicial supervision cannot confer prevailing party status. | No prevailing-party status under FHA; no fee award. |
| Prevailing party under NYC Admin. Code | Lawsuit acted as catalyst, triggering policy changes by Kimso. | No judicial imprimatur or court-retained jurisdiction; catalyst theory limited to private settlements. | Hugee is prevailing party under NYC Admin. Code § 8-502(f) and entitled to fees. |
| Reasonable fee for NYC HRL claim | lodestar method yields reasonable fee; rates claimed are within district norms. | Hanski’s hours and rates are excessive; misallocation across three clients; ministerial time should be excluded. | Award limited after rate and time reductions; total reasonable fee awarded as $22,880 (attorney $21,080, travel $600, costs $1,200). |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (catalyst theory rejected; prevailing party requires judicially sanctioned relief)
- Roberson v. Giuliani, 346 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2003) (recognizes other forms of judicial imprimatur can support prevailing status)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (standard for determining reasonable attorney's fees in civil rights cases)
- Perez v. Westchester Cnty. Dep’t of Corr., 587 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2009) (so-ordered settlements can confer prevailing-party status when judicial imprimatur exists)
- Preservation Coal. of Erie Cnty. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 356 F.3d 444 (2d Cir. 2004) (cites judicial imprimatur as basis for fees in settlement context)
- Torres v. Walker, 356 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2004) (so-ordering a dismissal without jurisdiction retainment lacks sufficient imprimatur)
- Liu v. City of New York, not cited in opinion for official reporter citation (not applicable) (placeholder not used)