Raja v. Burns, 43 F.4th 80

In March 2019 OATH summarily suspended non‑attorney representative Rizwan Raja; he sued the City and an OATH official in EDNY seeking injunctive relief but a TRO was denied.
OATH held a three‑day disciplinary hearing; before a decision Raja settled with OATH, ending the suspension without admitting wrongdoing.
Raja amended his federal complaint; the district court granted summary judgment for Raja on due‑process claims tied to the summary suspension but dismissed other claims and dismissed the official on qualified immunity grounds.
The City made a Rule 68 offer of judgment for $20,001 plus reasonable fees; Raja moved under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for $89,775 in fees (189 hours billed, including time on the OATH proceeding).
A magistrate recommended reducing the hourly rate and excluding OATH time, plus a 40% across‑the‑board cut for block billing and partial success; the district court adopted the recommendation and awarded $30,888.
On appeal the Second Circuit vacated the district court's fee judgment and remanded: it held the 40% blanket reduction was unjustified but upheld exclusion of hours spent on the OATH proceeding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a 40% across‑the‑board reduction to claimed hours was justified	40% is arbitrary and excessive; block‑billing entries were short and court could review individual entries; Raja prevailed on core claims so fees should be largely compensated	Block billing, vague entries, clerical tasks and partial success justify a substantial across‑the‑board reduction	2d Cir.: 40% cut was unsupported and an abuse of discretion; vacated the fee award and remanded for recalculation without that blanket reduction
Whether hours spent on the OATH administrative proceeding (or intermingled entries) are compensable under § 1988	OATH hearing was useful and necessary (served as substitute for discovery, produced testimony used in federal briefing) so those hours should be included	Administrative work is separable and not compensable unless discrete hours were "useful and of a type ordinarily necessary" to the § 1983 litigation	2d Cir.: No error in excluding all OATH hours where Raja failed to identify discrete administrative hours that were useful and ordinarily necessary to the federal action; exclusion affirmed

Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (fee award focuses on degree of success; prevailing plaintiffs entitled to fully compensatory fees when results are excellent)
Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (partial success does not preclude fees; evaluate relation of unsuccessful claims to successful ones)
Webb v. Bd. of Educ., 471 U.S. 234 (administrative proceeding work is compensable only if useful and ordinarily necessary to the civil action)
N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Crest St. Cmty. Council, Inc., 479 U.S. 6 (same standard for administrative work recoverability)
Kirsch v. Fleet Street, Ltd., 148 F.3d 149 (court may deduct a percentage for vague or deficient billing records)
Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547 (block billing is disfavored but permissible if court can conduct meaningful review)
Cullen v. Fliegner, 18 F.3d 96 (administrative disciplinary fees may be awarded for discrete portions that relate to the civil action)
Merck Eprova AG v. Gnosis S.p.A., 760 F.3d 247 (upholding fees despite block billing where hours were not excessive)
Clarke v. Frank, 960 F.2d 1146 (abuse of discretion standard governs appellate review of fee awards)
Lilly v. City of New York, 934 F.3d 222 (district courts may reduce rates or make across‑the‑board reductions for clerical tasks or mixed entries)