Saladino, MD v. Frank Tufano
7:20-cv-09346
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 24, 2025Background
- The case arises from a default judgment granted against Defendants Frank Tufano and Frankie’s Free-Range Meat, LLC, in a dispute with Plaintiff Paul Saladino, MD.
- The matter was referred to a magistrate judge for an inquest into damages, specifically regarding Plaintiff's request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Plaintiff submitted an application for attorneys' fees supported by an exhibit listing time and costs for the years 2020-2025, but without any explanatory support for billing rates or attorney qualifications.
- Defendant Tufano opposed the application via a motion to vacate the inquest, and Plaintiff filed a reply.
- The court, reviewing the attorneys' fee application, found insufficient information to assess the reasonableness of requested fees and costs.
- Plaintiff was ordered to supplement the application by providing additional details about billing rates, those who performed the work, and justification for both fees and costs by July 2, 2025.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs as requested | Fees and costs are reasonable and substantiated | Opposes fees as unsupported and unreasonable | Plaintiff must provide more detail and substantiation for fees/costs sought |
| Whether the submitted billing rates are justified | Rates are justified based on work performed | Rates are unjustified due to lack of information | Plaintiff must justify the requested rates with attorney qualifications |
| Whether hours billed are reasonable | Hours billed reflect necessary work | Claimed hours are excessive/unsupported | Plaintiff must provide explanation supporting reasonableness of hours |
| Adequacy of documentation for costs | Submitted exhibit details costs | No substantiation for requested costs | Plaintiff must provide evidence supporting each cost claimed |
Key Cases Cited
- Millea v. Metro-N. RR. Co., 658 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011) (lodestar method creates a presumptively reasonable attorney’s fee)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (reasonable fee is number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate)
- McDonald ex rel Prendergast v. Pension Plan of the NYSA-ILA Pension Tr. Fund, 450 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2006) (reasonable hourly rate aligns with prevailing rates in the district)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (reasonable rates must be in line with comparable attorneys’ skill and reputation)