990 F. Supp. 2d 242
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Jury found defendants Grossweiler and DeMartino liable for excessive force against Anna Stanczyk during an altercation triggered by accusations she failed to clean up after her dog.
- Jury awarded Stanczyk $55,000 in compensatory damages and $2,000 in punitive damages against each officer (total $59,000).
- Stanczyk moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Rule 54(d); defendants moved for costs under Rule 68.
- Rule 68 offer of judgment dated December 11, 2011 offered $150,001 to Stanczyk plus fees and costs, to release all claims against all defendants; offer was not accepted.
- Court held the Rule 68 Offer applied to all defendants, requiring Stanczyk to bear post-Offer costs and barring post-Offer recovery of those costs.
- Court awarded reduced fees and costs to Stanczyk ($18,837.45) and post-Offer costs to defendants ($1,186.20).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Rule 68 bar post-Offer costs and fees? | Stanczyk contends offer applied only to City, not officers. | Offer clearly applied to all defendants and released all related claims. | Offer applied to all defendants; post-Offer costs and fees barred. |
| Reasonableness of the attorneys' fees (lodestar) and lead counsel rate | Requested high rates reflect experience and case complexity. | Some rates are excessive given case simplicity and issue quality. | Lead counsel Norinsberg's rate reduced; others awarded requested rates. |
| Adjustment for degree of success | Plaintiff achieved substantial relief and punitive damages. | Relief was limited; damagesAwards were modest relative to request. | Fee award reduced to reflect limited success; total awarded $16,523.75 in fees after pre-Offer time adjustment. |
| Pre-Offer time billed and recoverable costs | Pre-Offer hours on related state-law claims were reasonably related to federal success. | Exclude time not reasonably related to federal claims. | Pre-Offer hours permitted; costs awarded after excluding expert testimony and post-Offer items. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (fee adjustments for limited success permissible)
- Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008) (factors for reasonable hourly rate; complexity and quality of representation)
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (Rule 68 requires plaintiffs to consider worth of ongoing litigation)
- Barfield v. N.Y. City Health & Hospitals Corp., 537 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2008) (degree of success factors; amount and quality of relief obtained)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (damages-based fee adjustments; private damages focus)
- Ismail v. Cohen, 899 F.2d 183 (2d Cir. 1990) (reference awards in similar cases and appropriate adjustments)
- Weyant v. Okst, 182 F.3d 902 (2d Cir. 1999) (punitive damages review and acceptable levels relative to compensatory damages)
- Matthews v. City of New York, 2006 WL 842392 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) ((excluded: WL; used for context in damages discussion))
- Bracey v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Bridgeport, 368 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2004) (reviewing adequacy of damages and related standards)