Case Information
*1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________
N o 17-CV-1544 (JFB)(GRB) _____________________ T RUSTEES OF THE N ORTHEAST C ARPENTERS H EALTH , P ENSION , A NNUITY , A PPRENTICESHIP , AND L ABOR M ANAGEMENT C OOPERATION F UNDS Petitioners, V ERSUS
P ATT ONSTRUCTION , I NC .,
Respondent.
___________________
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
November 1, 2017
___________________
J OSEPH F. B IANCO , District Judge: I. B ACKGROUND
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters A. Facts Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, The following facts are taken from the
and Labor Management Cooperation Funds Funds’ petition to confirm an arbitration f/k/a the Empire State Carpenters Annuity, award (“Pet.”) and accompanying exhibits. Apprenticeship, Labor-Management (ECF No. 1.) Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds
(hereinafter “petitioners” or the “Funds”) Patt Construction is bound to certain
commenced this action to confirm an collective bargaining agreements (the arbitration award obtained against Patt “CBAs”) with the Northeast Regional Construction, Inc. (hereinafter “respondent” Council of Carpenters (the “Union”). (Pet. or “Patt Construction”). Petitioners also ¶¶ 7-12.) The CBAs require Patt moved to recover attorney’s fees and costs Construction to make contributions to the in connection with this action. For the Funds for all work performed within the reasons set forth below, the Court grants trade and geographical jurisdiction of the petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitration Union. ( at ¶ 13.) award and grants petitioners’ motion for fees and costs. The Funds also established a Joint Policy
for Collection of Delinquent Contributions (the “Collection Policy”). ( at ¶ 15; Ex. *2 E, ECF No. 1-5.) The Collection Policy Ex. G.) Respondent has failed to abide by requires that the employer submit to a the award. (Pet. ¶ 27.) payroll audit upon request of the Funds. B. Procedural History
(Pet. ¶ 16; Ex. E, art. 4.1.) The Collection Policy further provides that if the employer On March 20, 2017, petitioners filed
fails to remit contributions to the Funds, the their petition in this Court, seeking matter shall be subject to arbitration. (Pet. ¶ confirmation of the arbitrator’s award, as 22; Ex. E, art. 2.2.) If the employer is found well as costs and attorney’s fees incurred in deficient in its contributions, the Collection the instant action. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) The Policy awards, in addition to the deficiency, petitioners served respondent on March 23, interest (Pet. ¶ 17; Ex. E, art. 2.1(C)), 2017. (ECF No. 8.) To date, respondent has liquidated damages (Pet. ¶ 18; Ex. E., art. not filed a response or appeared in this 6.1), and attorney’s fees, arbitration fees, action. and audit costs (Pet. ¶ 23; Ex. E, arts. 6.2 and 6.3). II. ONFIRMATION OF A RBITRATION A WARD Petitioners conducted an audit of A. Standard of Review respondent for the period April 15, 2010 through June 30, 2015 in order to determine A motion to confirm an arbitral award whether respondent had complied with its should be “treated as akin to a motion for obligations under the CBAs. (Pet. ¶ 19.) summary judgment.” D.H. Blair & Co. v. The auditor determined respondent failed to Gottdiener , 462 F.3d 95, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). remit contributions in the amount of The standard of review at the summary $156,045.29. ( Id. at ¶ 20.) judgment stage is well-settled. A court may grant a motion for summary judgment Pursuant to the Collection Policy, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure petitioners initiated arbitration. ( Id. at ¶ 24.) 56(a) only if “the movant shows that there is Petitioners provided Patt Construction with no genuine dispute as to any material fact a Notice of Intent to Arbitrate Delinquency and the movant is entitled to judgment as a dated June 23, 2016. ( ; Ex. F, ECF No. 1- matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); 6.) The arbitrator conducted a hearing and Gonzalez v. City of Schenectady , 728 F.3d rendered his award in writing dated August 149, 154 (2d Cir. 2013). The moving party 24, 2016. (Pet. ¶ 25; Ex. G, ECF No. 1-7.) bears the burden of showing that he is A copy of the award was delivered to Patt entitled to summary judgment. See Construction. (Pet. ¶ 25.) Huminski v. Corsones , 396 F.3d 53, 69 (2d Cir. 2005). The arbitrator concluded that Patt
Construction was in violation of the terms of A party asserting that a fact the CBAs and ordered respondent to pay the cannot be or is genuinely disputed Funds, pursuant to the CBAs, $247,226.82, must support the assertion by: (A) representing $156,045.29 in deficiencies; citing to particular parts of materials $52,541.12 in interest; $986.35 in additional in the record, including depositions, interest from past delinquencies; $31,209.06 documents, electronically stored in liquidated damages; $4,795.00 in audit information, affidavits or costs; $900.00 in attorney’s fees; and declarations, stipulations (including $750.00 for the arbitrator’s fee. (Pet. ¶ 26;
those made for purposes of the 48. Thus, the nonmoving party may not rest motion only), admissions, upon mere conclusory allegations or denials interrogatory answers, or other but must set forth “‘concrete particulars’ materials; or (B) showing that the showing that a trial is needed.” R.G. Grp., materials cited do not establish the Inc. v. Horn & Hardart Co. , 751 F.2d 69, 77 absence or presence of a genuine (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting SEC v. Research dispute, or that an adverse party Automation Corp. , 585 F.2d 31, 33 (2d Cir. cannot produce admissible evidence 1978)). Accordingly, it is insufficient for a to support the fact. party opposing summary judgment “‘merely to assert a conclusion without supplying Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). The court “‘is not supporting arguments or facts.’” BellSouth to weigh the evidence but is instead required Telecomms., Inc. v. W.R. Grace & Co. , 77 to view the evidence in the light most F.3d 603, 615 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting favorable to the party opposing summary Research Automation Corp. , 585 F.2d at judgment, to draw all reasonable inferences 33).
in favor of that party, and to eschew
credibility assessments.’” Amnesty Am. v. B. Discussion Town of W. Hartford , 361 F.3d 113, 122 (2d “Section 301 of the Labor Management
Cir. 2004) (quoting Weyant v. Okst Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185 [ ], F.3d 845, 854 (2d Cir. 1996)); see Anderson provides federal courts with jurisdiction v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 over petitions brought to confirm labor (1986) (summary judgment is unwarranted arbitration awards.” Local 802, Associated if “the evidence is such that a reasonable Musicians of Greater N.Y. v. Parker jury could return a verdict for Meridien Hotel , 145 F.3d 85, 88 (2d Cir. nonmoving party”).
1998). “Confirmation of a labor arbitration Once the moving party has met its award under LMRA § 301 is ‘a summary burden, the opposing party “‘must do more proceeding that merely makes what is than simply show that there is some already a final arbitration award a judgment metaphysical doubt as to the material of the Court.’” N.Y. Med. Ctr. of Queens v. facts. . . . [T]he nonmoving party must 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers E. come forward with specific facts showing No. 11-CV-04421 (ENV)(RLM), 2012 WL that there is a genuine issue for trial .’” 2179118, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2012) Caldarola v. Calabrese , 298 F.3d 156, 160 (quoting N.Y. City Dist. Council of (2d Cir. 2002) (alteration in original) Carpenters Pension Fund v. E. Millennium (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Constr., Inc. , No. 03-CV-5122, 2003 WL Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 22773355, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2003)). (1986)). As the Supreme Court stated in The Supreme Court has recognized that
Anderson , “[i]f the evidence is merely the LMRA expresses a “‘federal policy of colorable, or is not significantly probative, settling labor disputes by arbitration,’” summary judgment may be granted.” 477 which “‘would be undermined if courts had U.S. at 249-50 (citations omitted). Indeed, the final say on the merits of the awards.’” “the mere existence of some alleged factual United Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL–CIO dispute between the parties alone will not v. Misco, Inc. , 484 U.S. 29, 36 (1987) defeat an otherwise properly supported (quoting Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel & motion for summary judgment.” at 247- *4 Car Corp. , 363 U.S. 593, 596 (1960)). procured through fraud or dishonesty or that Accordingly, “the courts play only a limited any other basis for overturning the award role when asked to review the decision of an exists.” Trs. for the Mason Tenders Dist. arbitrator.” ; see, e.g. , Major League Counsel Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey , 532 U.S. Annuity Fund & Training Program Fund v. 504, 509 (2001); First Nat’l Supermarkets, Odessy Constr. Corp. , No. 14-CV-1560 Inc. v. Retail, Wholesale & Chain Store (GHW), 2014 WL 3844619, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Food Emps. Union Local 338, Affiliated Aug. 1, 2015) (granting unopposed motion with the Retail, Wholesale & Dep’t Store for summary judgment under LMRA). Union, AFL–CIO , 118 F.3d 892, 896 (2d Accordingly, the Court confirms the Cir. 1997); Local 1199, Drug, Hosp. & arbitration award of August 24, 2016. Health Care Emps. Union, RWDSU, AFL– III. P ETITIONERS ’ E NTITLEMENT TO CIO v. Brooks Drug Co. , 956 F.2d 22, 24-25 A TTORNEY ’ S F EES AND OSTS (2d Cir. 1992). In this limited role, a court must confirm an arbitration award as long as The petitioners also assert that they are it “‘draws its essence from the collective entitled to attorney’s fees and costs bargaining agreement’ and is not the expended in preparing the instant action to arbitrator’s ‘own brand of industrial confirm the arbitration award. justice.’” First Nat’l Supermarkets F.3d at 896 (quoting Misco , 484 U.S. at 36). “The general rule in our legal system is “Courts are not authorized to review the that each party must pay its own attorney’s arbitrator’s decision on the merits despite fees and expenses.” Perdue v. Kenny A. ex allegations that the decision rests on factual rel. Winn , 559 U.S. 542, 550 (2010). errors or misinterprets the parties’ Neither Section 301 of the LMRA nor the agreement.” Major League Baseball Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Players Ass’n , 532 U.S. at 509. Indeed, authorize the award of attorney’s fees in an “serious error,” and “improvident, even action to confirm an arbitration award. See, silly, factfinding do[ ] not provide a basis for e.g. , Trs. of N.Y.C. Dist. Council of a reviewing court to refuse to enforce the Carpenters Pension Fund v. TNS Mgmt. award.” (citations omitted). Servs., Inc. , No. 13-CV-2716 (JMF), 2014 WL 100008, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2014); Here, the Court concludes that the Trs. of N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the Pension Fund v. Dejil Sys., Inc. , No. 12-CV- CBAs and that it is based upon 005 (JMF), 2012 WL 3744802, at *4 uncontroverted evidence that Patt (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2012); N.Y.C. Dist. Construction failed to pay $156,045.29 in Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. contributions to the Funds for the period Angel Constr. Grp., LLC , No. 08-CV-9061 April 15, 2010 through June 30, 2015. The (RJS), 2009 WL 256009, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Collection Policy entitles the Funds to Feb. 3, 2009) (citing Int’l Chem. Workers recover that amount, as well as additional Union, Local No. 227 v. BASF Wyandotte amounts for interest, liquidated damages, Corp. , 774 F.2d 43, 47 (2d Cir. 1985)). attorney’s fees, the arbitrator’s fees, and Moreover, although Section 502(g) of the audit costs, which, together with Employee Retirement Income Security Act delinquency, support the award of (“ERISA”) requires the award of attorney’s $247,226.82. Finally, nothing in the record fees to a plan that prevails in an action to suggests “that the arbitrator’s award was *5 recover delinquent contributions pursuant to arbitrator’s ruling is irrelevant, however, a collective bargaining agreement, see 29 because the Agreement itself requires [the U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D), “this does not defendant] to pay attorneys’ fees incurred by necessarily mean that a successful party is the Trustees in seeking confirmation. . . . also entitled to its costs and attorney’s fees Since the parties bargained for the awarding in bringing a petition to confirm an of attorneys’ fees in this precise arbitration award.” Abondolo v. Jerry circumstance, the Court respects their WWHS Co., Inc. , 829 F. Supp. 2d 120, 130 agreement and orders [the defendant] to pay (E.D.N.Y. 2011); accord TNS Mgmt. Servs. , the costs incurred by the Trustees in seeking 2014 WL 100008, at *4; Dejil Sys. , 2012 confirmation of the arbitrator’s award.”); see WL 3744802, at *4. Nonetheless, “because also Trs. of N.Y.C. Dist. Council of a court may, in the exercise of its inherent Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, equitable powers, award attorney’s fees Annuity Fund, & Apprenticeship, when opposing counsel acts in bad faith, Journeyman Retraining, Educ. & Indus. attorney’s fees and costs may be proper Fund v. Alliance Workroom Corp. , No. 13- when a party opposing confirmation of CV-5096 (KPF), 2013 WL 6498165, at *6 arbitration award ‘refuses to abide by an (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2013) (holding that CBA arbitrator’s decision without justification.’” authorized award of attorney’s fees and N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension costs in action to confirm arbitration award). Fund v. E. Millenium Constr., Inc. , No. 03- Accordingly, the Court concludes that the CV-5122 (DAB), 2003 WL 22773355, at *2 petitioners are entitled to recover attorney’s (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2003) (quoting Int’l fees and costs.
Chem. Workers Union, Local No. 227 , 774 A. Attorney’s Fees F.2d at 47); see, e,g. , TNS Mgmt. Servs.
2014 WL 100008, at *4 (citing cases); Trs. The Court uses the “lodestar figure,” of Nat’l Org. of Indus. Trade Unions Ins. which is determined by multiplying the Trust Fund v. Davis Grande Co. , No. 03- number of hours reasonably expended on a CV-6229 (NG) (SMG), 2006 WL 1652642, case by a reasonable hourly rate, to calculate at *4 (E.D.N.Y. June 9, 2006). reasonable attorney’s fees. See Hensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983); see
Here, the Court need not decide whether also Luciano v. Olsten Corp. , 109 F.3d 111, the respondent refused to abide by the 115 (2d Cir. 1997). “Both [the Second arbitrator’s award without justification Circuit] and the Supreme Court have held because the Collection Policy obligates that the lodestar . . . creates a ‘presumptively employers who fail to make timely reasonable fee.’” Millea v. Metro–N. R.R. contributions to the Funds to pay attorney’s Co. , 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011) fees and costs incurred in recovering the (quoting Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens delinquent contributions. ( See Pet. Ex. E, Neighborhood Assoc. v. Cty. of Albany , 522 arts. 1.1(C)(4), 6.2, 6.3.) The parties’ F.3d 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2008)). “‘[T]he agreements are a sufficient basis upon which lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of to award attorney’s fees and costs. See relevant factors constituting a N.Y.C. Dist. Council of Carpenters Pension ‘reasonable’ attorney’s fee.’” Perdue , 559 Fund v. Dafna Constr. Co., Inc. , 438 F. U.S. at 553 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Del. Supp. 2d 238, 242 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air (“Whether [the defendant] had no U.S. 546, 565-66 (1986)). Thus, the justification in refusing to comply with the *6 Supreme Court has recognized that “the contingent; (7) the time limitations lodestar method produces an award that imposed by the client or the roughly approximates the fee that the circumstances; (8) the amount prevailing attorney would have received if involved in the case and the results he or she had been representing a paying obtained; (9) the experience, client who was billed by the hour in a reputation, and ability of the comparable case.” Id. at 551. “The burden attorneys; (10) the “undesirability” is on the party seeking attorney’s fees to of the case; (11) the nature and submit sufficient evidence to support the length of professional hours worked and the rates claimed.” Hugee relationship with the client; and v. Kimso Apartments, LLC , 852 F. Supp. 2d (12) awards in similar cases.
281, 298 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing Hensley , at 186 n.3 (quoting Johnson , 488 F.2d at 461 U.S. at 433). 717-19). Finally, a district court should also
1. Reasonable Hourly Rate consider “that a reasonable, paying client wishes to spend the minimum necessary to “The reasonable hourly rate is the rate a litigate the case effectively,” and “that such paying client would be willing to pay.” an individual might be able to negotiate with Arbor Hill , 522 F.3d at 190. The Second his or her attorneys, using their desire to Circuit’s “‘forum rule’ generally requires obtain the reputational benefits that might use of ‘the hourly rates employed in the accrue from being associated with the case.” district in which the reviewing court sits in at 190. “The burden rests with the calculating the presumptively reasonable prevailing party to justify the reasonableness fee.’” Bergerson v. N.Y. State Office of of the requested rate,” and a plaintiff’s Mental Health, Cent. N.Y. Psychiatric Ctr. , attorney “should establish his hourly rate 652 F.3d 277, 290 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting with satisfactory evidence — in addition to Simmons v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. , 575 F.3d the attorney’s own affidavits.” Hugee 170, 174 (2d Cir. 2009)). The Second F. Supp. 2d at 298 (citations omitted). Circuit also instructed district courts to Courts in this district have concluded
consider the factors set forth in Johnson v. that approximately $200 to $325 is a Georgia Highway Express, Inc. , 488 F.2d reasonable hourly rate for senior associates, 714 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other and that $100 to $200 is a reasonable hourly grounds by Blanchard v. Bergeron , 489 U.S. rate for more junior associates. See, e.g. 87, 92-93 (1989). See Arbor Hill , 522 F.3d Pall Corp. v. 3M Purification Inc. , Nos. 97- at 190.
CV-7599 (RRM)(ETB), 03-CV-0092 The twelve Johnson factors are: (RRM)(ETB), 2012 WL 1979297, at *4 (1) the time and labor required; (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2012). Of course, “the (2) the novelty and difficulty of the range of ‘reasonable’ attorney fee rates in questions; (3) the level of skill this district varies depending on the type of required to perform the legal service case, the nature of the litigation, the size of properly; (4) the preclusion of the firm, and the expertise of its attorneys.” employment by the attorney due to Siracuse v. Program for the Dev. of Human acceptance of the case; (5) the Potential , No. 07-CV-2205 (CLP), 2012 WL attorney’s customary hourly rate; 1624291, at *30 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2012). (6) whether the fee is fixed or
Petitioners request an hourly rate of 2. Reasonable Hours $225 for Virginia & Ambinder, LLP Having determined a reasonable hourly
associate, Nicole Marimon. Ms. Marimon is rate for the petitioners’ counsel, the Court a 2014 graduate of Fordham University must determine the reasonable number of School of Law and avers that she “has hours expended by the petitioners’ counsel handled the prosecution of several ERISA in this litigation. collection actions.” (Pet. ¶ 32.) Ms.
Marimon further states that the requested “The party seeking attorney’s fees also hourly rate is “similar to or lower than the bears the burden of establishing that the rates typically charged by attorneys of number of hours for which compensation is commensurate skill and experience in sought is reasonable.” Custodio v. Am. similar actions [in the district].” ( at ¶ Chain Link & Const., Inc. , No. 06-CV-7148 34.) (GBD) (HBP), 2014 WL 116147, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2014) (citing Cruz v.
In light of the prevailing hourly rates in Local Union No. 3 of Int’l Bhd. of Elec. this district and all other factors set forth in Workers , 34 F.3d 1148, 1160 (2d Cir. Arbor Hill and Johnson , the Court concludes 1994)). “Applications for fee awards should that the hourly rate of $225 is too high, generally be documented by given that Ms. Marimon graduated from law contemporaneously created time records that school in 2014. See, e.g. , Trs. of the Local 7 specify, for each attorney, the date, the hours Tile Indus. Welfare Fund v. Richard’s expended, and the nature of the work done.” Improvement Bldg. Inc. , No. 15-CV-3898 Kirsch v. Fleet St. Ltd. , 148 F.3d 149, 173 (JS) (AKT), 2016 WL 6110455, at *14 (2d Cir. 1998). “Hours that are ‘excessive, (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2016) (finding Ms. redundant, or otherwise unnecessary,’ are to Marimon’s proposed $200 hourly rate was be excluded, and in dealing with such too high and reducing the hourly rate to surplusage, the court has discretion simply $150), report and recommendation adopted to deduct a reasonable percentage of the 2016 WL 4764909 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, number of hours claimed ‘as a practical 2016). Accordingly, given Ms. Marimon’s means of trimming fat from a fee current level of experience, the Court application.’” (quoting Hensley concludes in its discretion that her time shall [1] be compensated at $175 per hour. N.Y. Ass’n for Retarded U.S. at 434;
Children, Inc. v. Carey , 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 (2d Cir. 1983)); see also Lunday v. City of Albany , 42 F.3d 131, 134 (2d Cir. [1] The Court is awarding a slightly higher rate than in 1994) (“We do not require that the court set forth item-by-item findings concerning what Richard’s Improvement Building Inc. because Ms. may be countless objections to individual Marimon has an additional one year of experience. billing items.”). Petitioners also note that Virginia & Ambinder, Petitioners have submitted a printout of LLP billed legal assistants’ time at a rate of $100 per an invoice sent by Virginia & Ambinder, hour for work performed in connection with this action. ( See Pet. ¶ 33.) However, the Virginia & LLP to the Union for professional services Ambinder, LLP invoice submitted does not reference rendered in connection with the case at bar. any work performed by any legal assistants, and ( See Pet. Ex. H.) This invoice shows that petitioners do not appear to request any fees for legal assistants’ work. ( See id. at Ex. H, ECF No. 1-8.)
Ms. Marimon billed 3.8 hours on this matter. The Court sees no reason to depart from ( See id. ) the lodestar figure in this case. See, e.g. Perdue , 559 U.S. at 553 (noting that lodestar At the outset, the Court concludes that figure includes “most, if not all,” relevant invoice printout satisfies the factors in setting reasonable attorneys’ fee). contemporaneous records requirement. Therefore, the Court awards the petitioners Courts accept the printout of an invoice that $665.00 in attorney’s fees. provides “a clear description of the work performed, the time spent on the respective B. Costs matter, the attorney who rendered services, “As for costs, a court will generally
and the date the services were performed.” award ‘those reasonable out-of-pocket Big R Food Warehouses v. Local 338 expenses incurred by attorneys and RWDSU , 896 F. Supp. 292, 295 (E.D.N.Y. ordinarily charged to their clients.’” 1995); see, e.g. , Home Loan Inv. Bank, Pennacchio v. Powers , No. 05-CV-985 F.S.B. v. Goodness & Mercy, Inc. , No. 10- (RRM)(RML), 2011 WL 2945825, at *2 CV-4677 (ADS)(ETB), 2012 WL 1078963, (E.D.N.Y. July 21, 2011) (quoting LeBlanc– at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2012), report and Sternberg v. Fletcher , 143 F.3d 748, 763 (2d recommendation adopted , 2012 WL Cir. 1998)). “The fee applicant bears the 1078886 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012); Fuerst burden of adequately documenting and v. Fuerst , No. 10-CV-3941, 2012 WL itemizing the costs requested.” ; see also 1145934, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2012); First Keystone Consultants, Inc. v. New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre , No. Schlesinger Elec. Contractors, Inc. , No. 10- 02-CV-981 (FJS)(RFT), 2007 WL 655603, CV-696 (KAM)(SMG), 2013 WL 950573, at *1-2 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2007); Boster v. at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2013). In Braccia , No. 06-CV-4756 (JG)(RER), 2007 particular, under Local Civil Rule 54.1, “the WL 4287704, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, party must include as part of the request ‘an 2007). The time record submitted by affidavit that the costs claimed are allowable petitioners provides this information in by law, are correctly stated and were sufficient detail, as it includes a description necessarily incurred,’” and “[b]ills for the of the work performed by Ms. Marimon, the costs claimed must be attached as exhibits.” dates on which she performed the work, and D.J. ex rel. Roberts v. City of New York , No. the amount of time she spent on the various 11-CV-5458 (JGK)(DF), 2012 WL projects ( see Pet. Ex. H), and Ms. Marimon 5431034, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2012) avers that this information was entered (quoting Local Civ. R. 54.1(a)), report and contemporaneously as the work was recommendation adopted , 2012 WL performed ( see Pet. ¶ 31).
5429521 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2012).
Finally, the Court concludes that the 3.8 Here, the petitioners request $470.00 in hours billed on this matter by Virginia & litigation costs for the filing fee and service Ambinder, LLP is a reasonable number of fees. ( See Pet. ¶ 36.) This cost is hours billed, given the description of the recoverable, and the Court has determined tasks performed and the fact that the motion that no additional documentation is was unopposed.
necessary. See Trs. of Empire State Accordingly, the Court calculates the Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor lodestar figure to be $665.00. Mgmt. Cooperation, Pension & Welfare *9 Funds v. Sanders Constr., Inc. , No. 13-CV-
5102 (JFB)(ARL), 2015 WL 1608039, at *6
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 2015).
Accordingly, the Court awards the
petitioners $470.00 in costs.
IV. ONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above,
petitioners’ motion to confirm the arbitration
award in the amount of $247,226.82 is
hereby granted. Further, the Court awards
the petitioners $665.00 in attorney’s fees
and $470.00 in costs. The Clerk of the
Court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
______________________
JOSEPH F. BIANCO
United States District Judge
Dated: November 1, 2017
Central Islip, New York
* * *
Petitioners are represented by Charles R.
Virginia and Nicole Marimon of Virginia &
Ambinder, LLP, 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor,
New York, New York 10004.