Alvarez v. Fine Craftsman Group, LLC
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-10452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Alvarez v. Fine Craftsman Group, LLC, Judge Willis approved $98,685 in fees and $2,605.40 in costs after reducing duplicative and error-related hours.
The plaintiffs were awarded $98,685.00 in attorneys’ fees and $2,605.40 in costs, while the defendants were ordered to bear those amounts.
What happened
In Alvarez v. Fine Craftsman Group, LLC, the plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees and litigation costs after prevailing on a partial summary-judgment motion concerning unpaid overtime. They requested $105,825 in fees and $2,605.40 in costs for work by their two attorneys.
The defendants argued that the attorneys’ hourly rates and the number of hours were excessive. The court found the requested rates—$600 per hour for Jeanne Mirer and $450 per hour for Ria Julien—reasonable. It reduced the billed time by removing hours spent correcting a clerical error and duplicate time entries.
The court approved $98,685 in attorneys’ fees and $2,605.40 in costs. Judge Jennifer E. Willis also directed the Clerk of Court to close the fee-motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Alvarez v. Fine Craftsman Group, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-10452
- George Daniels
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs applied for attorneys’ fees and costs after prevailing on a partial summary-judgment motion in their claims against Fine Craftsman Group, LLC, Joseph Zyskowski, and Krzysztof Pogorzelski. The earlier rulings included a recommendation granting the plaintiffs’ partial summary-judgment motion in part and denying the defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment. After a further recommendation addressing the defendants’ nonpayment of overtime, Judge Daniels adopted that recommendation.
The plaintiffs sought $105,825 in attorneys’ fees for 205.05 hours of work by attorneys Ria Julien and Jeanne Mirer, plus $2,605.40 in litigation costs. The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the hourly rates and the amount of time claimed were unreasonable, unnecessary, and excessive. The plaintiffs responded that the rates and hours were reasonable.
Legal standard
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The court used the “lodestar” method, which calculates a presumptively reasonable fee by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours. The party requesting fees must provide enough information, including contemporaneous time records, for the court to evaluate the request. The court also considers the plaintiff’s degree of success.
Hourly rates
The court found the requested hourly rates reasonable. It relied on the attorneys’ experience in Fair Labor Standards Act and employment litigation and on hourly rates approved in other Southern District of New York cases. The court approved a rate of $600 per hour for Mirer and $450 per hour for Julien.
Hours and fee calculation
Although the court found the time records generally reasonable, it removed 8.2 hours spent filing objections and briefing an issue caused by the plaintiffs’ clerical error. It also removed six hours for a duplicate entry concerning preparation for Joseph Zyskowski’s deposition. The court did not disallow redacted entries relating to client discussions or calls because the redactions protected attorney-client confidentiality while leaving enough information to evaluate the work.
The resulting calculation was:
- Ria Julien: 105.50 hours at $450 per hour, totaling $47,475.00. - Jeanne Mirer: 85.35 hours at $600 per hour, totaling $51,210.00. - Total attorneys’ fees: $98,685.00.
The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting a change to the lodestar amount. It also found that the plaintiffs had submitted documentation supporting the full $2,605.40 in requested costs.
Disposition
The court approved an award of $98,685.00 in attorneys’ fees and $2,605.40 in costs, and directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 79.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.