Scott v. City of New York
643 F.3d 56
2d Cir.2011Background
- Puccio was awarded $515,179.28 in attorney’s fees under the FLSA §216(b) against the City of New York, despite no contemporaneous time records.
- On remand, the district court reinstated the award based on personal observation and time estimates (120 trial hours plus 817 in-court hours).
- We previously held Carey requires contemporaneous records unless rare, clearly defined, exceptional circumstances justify deviation.
- We remanded to the district court to explain why Puccio’s circumstances warrant an exception and retained jurisdiction.
- The opinion vacates the district court’s order and directs a new fee application based only on official court records with an hourly rate of $550.
- Official court records may substitute for contemporaneous records for in-court time, but not travel or out-of-court preparation; the burden to gather records lies with the applicant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether official court records can substitute for contemporaneous time records under Carey. | Puccio should be eligible for fees based on court-record entries. | City contends Carey requires contemporaneous records; substitutes are insufficient. | Yes, limited substitutes allowed. |
| Whether the district court’s reliance on personal observation to create an exception is improper. | Puccio’s work merits compensation; district court misused observation. | No explicit contemporaneous records; exception justified. | Vacated; personal observation cannot justify award. |
| Whether Puccio may submit a new fee application based on official records at $550/hour. | Official records should support the time billed. | Carey limits apply; only records should be used. | Remanded to allow application using official records at $550/hour. |
Key Cases Cited
- New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children v. Carey, Inc., 711 F.2d 1136 (2d Cir.1983) (strict contemporaneous-records rule with rare exceptions)
- Scott v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 130 (2d Cir.2010) (reaffirmed Carey rule and rare-exceptions framework; remanded for explanation of exceptions)
- United States v. Jacobson, 15 F.3d 19 (2d Cir.1994) (procedural framework for appellate review on remand)