Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, 1:13-cv-01669

Plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk sued her former employers and supervisors alleging hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, plus common-law defamation and malicious prosecution; malicious prosecution was later withdrawn.
After JMOL in favor of defendants on several claims, a jury found defendants liable only under the NYCHRL hostile work environment claim and awarded $90,000 compensatory and $50,000 punitive damages.
Plaintiff's counsel (RLR) sought $1,379,795.58 in attorneys' fees and $51,011.58 in costs; defendants sought $10,279.38 in fees for successful defenses on some claims.
The Court treated Marchuk as a prevailing party under the NYCHRL but found RLR’s fee-and-cost request grossly excessive given the limited success and other factors (including a Rule 68 offer and unreasonable billing practices).
The Court reduced fees for (inter alia) post-Rule 68 work, excessive complaint drafting, time spent on failed claims, and other unreasonable billing (block billing, redundant tasks), and denied defendants’ fee requests under § 1988 and § 1927.
Final award to Plaintiff: $194,308.34 in attorneys’ fees and $28,586.39 in costs; defendants’ motions for fees denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prevailing plaintiff may recover fees and costs under NYCHRL	Marchuk sought full fees/costs as prevailing NYCHRL plaintiff	Defendants argued fees should be limited given limited recovery	Court: Marchuk is prevailing party but fee award must be reduced for limited success and other factors; awarded reduced fees/costs
Effect of Rule 68 offer on fee/cost recovery	RLR argued Rule 68 cuts off costs but not attorney's fees	Defendants argued Rule 68 bars recovery of post-offer fees and costs when judgment is less favorable	Held: Rule 68 bars recovery of both fees and costs accrued after the offer; reduced award by post-offer amounts
Whether complaint drafting and related billing were compensable	RLR defended time spent drafting pleadings and amendments	Defendants pointed to inflammatory, unnecessary pleadings and excessive billing for complaint work	Held: Court reduced fees for complaint drafting ($50,000 reduction) due to unprofessional, unnecessary pleadings
Allocation for failed claims and excessive hours	RLR sought full lodestar despite losing most claims	Defendants argued work on retaliation/defamation/malicious prosecution unrelated to NYCHRL claim and fees should be denied	Held: Court disallowed fees for work on claims not intertwined; conservatively apportioned 60% reduction for failed claims and further 40% reduction for unreasonable billing, arriving at final fee

Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (reasonable fee must be sufficient to attract competent counsel)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (prevailing party standard and exclusion of hours unrelated to successful claims)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (amount of damages relative to sought recovery is primary consideration in fee awards)
LeBlanc-Sternberg v. Fletcher, 143 F.3d 748 (intertwined claims analysis for apportioning fees)
Marion S. Mishkin Law Office v. Lopalo, 767 F.3d 144 (district court may use percentage deductions rather than line-by-line review)
McDonald ex rel. Prendergast v. Pension Plan of the NYSA ILA Pension Trust Fund, 450 F.3d 91 (percentage deduction as a practical means to trim excessive fee requests)
Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (reasonable hourly rate standard)
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (standards for awarding fees to prevailing defendants under Title VII)