Offor v. Mercy Medical Center, Rockville Centre Division
2:15-cv-02219
| E.D.N.Y | Aug 29, 2018Background
- Plaintiff Dr. Chinwe Offor and her counsel, Ike Agwuegbo, were sanctioned under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for counsel’s refusal to agree to redactions and related misconduct concerning unredacted medical records; the Court previously found bad faith and reserved the amount of sanctions.
- Defendants (Mercy Medical Center/Rockville Centre Division, Catholic Health Services of Long Island, Drs. Devarajan and Reilly) moved for recovery of attorney’s fees and costs incurred defending the motions to seal and the sanctions motion.
- Defendants submitted contemporaneous billing records from Nixon Peabody LLP showing 25.6 hours by a partner (billed at $305/hr) and 86.9 hours by an associate (billed at $205/hr), totaling $25,622.50.
- Agwuegbo opposed, arguing (1) the client should not be punished for counsel’s conduct, (2) some billing schedule redactions impeded review, and (3) he is unable to pay. He did not dispute rates or hours.
- The District Court found the hourly rates and hours reasonable, concluded the full fee award is needed for Rule 11 deterrence, directed that any fee liability be imposed on Agwuegbo (not Offor), but reserved entry of judgment to permit Agwuegbo to submit evidence of financial inability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the requested fees are reasonable under Rule 11 | Agwuegbo did not contest rates/hours; generally sought to relitigate sanction validity | Nixon Peabody’s rates and contemporaneous records show reasonable rates and hours totaling $25,622.50 | Fees of $25,622.50 are reasonable and necessary for deterrence |
| Who should bear payment of the sanction | Offor should not be penalized for counsel’s misconduct; fee should not be charged to client | Fees should be paid by offending counsel (Agwuegbo) | Fees will be payable by Agwuegbo, not the plaintiff Offor |
| Whether and how the Court should assess inability to pay | Agwuegbo stated inability to pay but submitted no supporting documentation | Defendants opposed reduction absent proof of hardship | Court will reserve final judgment and allow Agwuegbo 20 days to submit financial documentation; Defendants may respond within 10 days |
| Proper standard and methodology for fee calculation | (implicitly) apply prevailing lodestar/forum standards | Use Second Circuit lodestar/presumptively reasonable fee analysis (Arbor Hill/Johnson factors; forum rule) | Court applied Arbor Hill/Johnson factors and forum rule to find rates and hours reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastway Constr. Corp. v. City of New York, 821 F.2d 121 (2d Cir. 1987) (Rule 11 sanctions may include reasonable attorney’s fees to deter baseless filings)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (establishes lodestar/presumptively reasonable fee framework and Johnson factors guidance)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S. 1984) (reasonable hourly rate measured by prevailing market rates in the relevant community)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (sets multi-factor test for assessing fee reasonableness)
- Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 1998) (requires contemporaneous time records to support fee applications)
- Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of the Int'l Bd. of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148 (2d Cir. 1994) (lodestar method and fee calculation principles)