Shor v. Storm Tight Windows Inc.
0:19-cv-62784
| S.D. Fla. | Dec 21, 2021Background
- Plaintiff sued under the FLSA for unpaid wages; parties reached a settlement approved by the Court on March 16, 2021, leaving attorneys’ fees and costs to be determined.
- Plaintiff moved for $15,150 in attorneys’ fees and $647 in costs; Defendant objected to hours, hourly rate, and Local Rule 7.3 disclosure and conferral defects, and to specific time entries.
- The Magistrate Judge reviewed billing records, Local Rule compliance, and applicable law, and found Plaintiff a prevailing FLSA plaintiff entitled to reasonable fees and costs.
- The court found fee-agreement disclosure and timekeeper qualifications minimally sufficient but the conferral certification deficient (not fully descriptive), though not fatal here.
- The court approved an hourly rate of $375 for counsel, reduced compensable hours from 40.4 to 29.7, and limited recoverable service fees to the U.S. Marshal-equivalent amount, denying mediation costs.
- Recommended award: $11,137.50 in attorneys’ fees (29.7 hrs × $375) and $465 in costs (filing fee $400 + recoverable service $65), total $11,602.50; no interest awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Local Rule 7.3 disclosure (fee agreement, timekeeper qualifications, conferral) | Disclosed fee agreement terms and counsel’s >10 years’ experience; certificate stated conferral occurred and defendant opposes | Disclosure too vague; conferral certificate insufficiently detailed | Fee agreement and qualifications disclosure adequate; conferral statement minimal but not fatal—caution for future filings |
| Reasonable hourly rate | Requests $375/hr for counsel with ~10 years’ employment-law experience; cites prior awards | Rate is too high; should be reduced to prevailing market rate | $375/hr is reasonable based on counsel’s experience, prior awards, and court’s knowledge |
| Reasonable hours billed | Requests 40.4 hours (including hours for fee litigation) | Many entries excessive/redundant; asks to compensate only 29.7 hours | Court reviewed line-by-line, sustained objections, and awards 29.7 compensable hours |
| Recovery of costs (filing, service, mediation) | Seeks $647 (filing $400, service $247) and $600 mediation (discretionary) | Service rate excessive; mediation not recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 | Awarded $465: $400 filing + $65 service (U.S. Marshal benchmark); mediation cost denied |
| Fees for litigating fee petition | Time spent preparing fee motion included; seeks additional unspecified amounts for fee litigation | Objected to unspecified/additional fee requests | Court will not award additional/unspecified hours beyond billed time; compensable fee-litigation time already billed is considered but no extra award granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Silva v. Miller, 547 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (S.D. Fla.) (FLSA prevailing plaintiffs may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees)
- Norman v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir.) (lodestar method and court’s role in assessing reasonable fees)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (U.S.) (reasonable hourly rate is prevailing market rate)
- ACLU v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423 (11th Cir.) (billing judgment and disparities in attorney experience affect rates)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (U.S.) (circumstances justifying departure from lodestar)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (reasonableness of hours and lodestar analysis)
- EEOC v. W & O, Inc., 213 F.3d 600 (11th Cir.) (limits on private process-server costs; marshal-rate benchmark governs recoverability)
- Thompson v. Pharmacy Corp. of Am., 334 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir.) (fee-litigation award standards and when a hearing is unnecessary)