Johnson v. Parts Authority, LLC, 1:16-cv-06852

Background:

Plaintiff Susana Lucio prevailed in arbitration against Parts Authority and was awarded $11,731.08 in damages plus $112,580 in attorneys’ fees and $5,775.48 in costs by the arbitrator.
Defendants later opposed confirmation of the arbitration award and moved to vacate it, prompting Lucio to litigate in federal court to confirm and defend the award.
Magistrate Judge Levy issued an R&R recommending denial of Lucio’s post-arbitration fee request for work spent confirming and defending the award.
Lucio objected; District Judge Dora L. Irizarry conducted de novo review, rejecting the R&R and finding FLSA fee-shifting extends to confirmation/defense of arbitration awards.
The Court applied lodestar analysis, adjusted hourly rates for Lucio’s counsel, found the submitted hours excessive, and awarded a reduced fee of $12,500.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a prevailing FLSA plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees for confirming or defending an arbitration award	FLSA’s fee-shifting authorizes recovery of fees for the post-arbitration confirmation/defense proceedings; denying fees would frustrate FLSA’s purposes	No clear statutory authority under FAA or FLSA requires awarding fees for confirmation/defense of an arbitration award	Court: FLSA authorizes reasonable fees for confirming/defending arbitration awards to effectuate statute’s remedial purpose
Whether NYLL/other fee-shifting analogies limit fee recovery to the arbitration itself rather than subsequent confirmation proceedings	Argues Second Circuit and other statutes (e.g., ERISA, ADEA) support awarding fees for post-award proceedings	Magistrate relied on district court authority distinguishing statutory entitlement to fees in underlying claim from confirmation proceedings	Court: Second Circuit precedent interpreting analogous statutes supports awarding fees for confirmation/enforcement proceedings
Whether fees should be awarded under the court’s inherent sanctioning power instead of statutory fee-shifting	Focus on statutory fee-shifting under FLSA; disputes over characterization of authority	Magistrate applied inherent-power standards and declined fee award	Court: Statutory fee-shifting governs; inherent-power analysis unnecessary and not applied to deny fees
Reasonableness and amount of fees (rates and hours) to award	Seeks $34,880 incurred, requests only $12,500 to compromise; submitted rates for partners/associates	Argues hours and rates should be scrutinized; multiple attorneys billed on brief litigation	Court: Reduced partner/associate rates, found billed hours excessive given four attorneys and 95.3 hours, approved the negotiated $12,500 award after lodestar adjustments

Key Cases Cited

Odeon Capital Grp. LLC v. Ackerman, 864 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2017) (interpreting ERISA fee-shifting to allow fees in actions to confirm arbitrator awards)
Porzig v. Dresdner, Kleinwort, Benson, N. Am. LLC, 497 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2007) (approving fees for time spent litigating fee applications—"fees on fees")
DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting ADEA incorporates FLSA’s fee-shifting language)
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (describing FLSA as a protective, remedial statute)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (plaintiff bears burden to document hours and rates for fee awards)
Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (guidance on determining the presumptively reasonable fee and lodestar method)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (market rates and comparable attorney skill guide reasonable hourly rates)
Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 109 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (lodestar calculation for fee awards)