Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 20, 2024

Access Bio, Inc. v. Division 5 Labs, Inc.

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:23-cv-04820
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
7
Fee PetitionArbitrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Access Bio v. Division 5 Labs, Judge Schofield granted in part Access Bio’s fee motion, awarding $15,960 in fees and $1,213.64 in expenses.

Who this affects

Access Bio receives $15,960 in attorney’s fees and $1,213.64 in expenses; Division 5 Labs is the respondent against which the arbitration award had previously been confirmed.

What happened

In Access Bio, Inc. v. Division 5 Labs, Inc., Access Bio asked the court to award attorney’s fees and expenses connected with confirming and collecting an arbitration award. Division 5 Labs had appeared in the case but did not oppose the request.

The court found that the requested work hours and expenses were generally reasonable, but reduced the hourly rates and deducted time spent correcting electronic filing errors. It approved $1,213.64 in expenses, primarily for repeated attempts to serve Division 5 Labs.

Judge Schofield granted the motion in part and awarded Access Bio $15,960 in attorney’s fees and $1,213.64 in expenses. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Access Bio, Inc. v. Division 5 Labs, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-04820
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
June 20, 2024

Background

Access Bio previously obtained an order confirming an arbitration award against Division 5 Labs. That order also allowed Access Bio to apply for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred while attempting to collect from Division 5 Labs.

Access Bio then requested $30,665 in attorney’s fees for 49 hours of work by one partner, one associate, and two paralegals, plus $1,213.64 in expenses. The work included preparing the petition to confirm the arbitration award and attempting to serve Division 5 Labs. Division 5 Labs had appeared in the case but did not respond to the fee motion, so the court treated it as unopposed.

Legal standard

The court explained that the party requesting fees must document the hours worked and hourly rates. Courts generally calculate a fee award using the “lodestar,” which means multiplying the reasonable number of hours by a reasonable hourly rate. Even when a fee request is unopposed, the court must independently review whether the requested fees are reasonable.

Hourly rates

The court found that the matter was less complex than ordinary commercial litigation because the petition to confirm the arbitration award was unopposed and relatively short. It therefore reduced the requested rates as follows:

- Partner Matthew Oliver’s rate was reduced from $1,050 to $800 per hour. His 6.9 hours were unchanged, resulting in an award of $5,520. - Associate Logan Vickery’s rate was reduced from $600 to $300 per hour. His compensable hours were reduced from 32.9 to 31.2, resulting in an award of $9,360. - The paralegals’ combined rate was reduced from $400 to $150 per hour. Their compensable hours were reduced from 9.2 to 7.2, resulting in an award of $1,080.

Hours and expenses

The court found that the time spent on service and substantive filings was reasonable, including because Division 5 Labs was unresponsive. But it deducted 1.7 hours from Vickery’s time and 2 hours from the paralegals’ time because electronic filing errors required corrective work that duplicated earlier efforts.

The court approved all $1,213.64 in requested expenses. It found that the expenses, which primarily involved repeated attempts to serve Division 5 Labs, were reasonable because Division 5 Labs apparently was attempting to avoid service.

Disposition

The court granted Access Bio’s motion in part. It awarded $15,960 in attorney’s fees and $1,213.64 in expenses, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket 21.

The authoritative version

Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.