Garrido v. F&M Construction And Development Corp.
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-04084
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Garrido v. F&M Construction And Development Corp., Judge Vyskocil granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed request for $58,299.50 in fees and $1,454.55 in costs.
Plaintiffs and their counsel, whose request for attorneys’ fees and costs was granted, and Defendants, who are affected by the fee-and-cost award.
What happened
In Garrido v. F&M Construction And Development Corp., Plaintiffs requested attorneys’ fees and costs after winning most of their claims in a wage-and-hours case following a bench trial. The request was unopposed.
Plaintiffs sought $58,299.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,454.55 in costs. The court found that their time and cost records were detailed and that the requested fees and costs were reasonable under the applicable federal and New York statutes.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Garrido v. F&M Construction And Development Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-04084
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 10, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for attorneys’ fees and costs in this wage-and-hours case. The court stated that Plaintiffs had prevailed on most of their claims after a bench trial, as described in the court’s earlier findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Plaintiffs requested $58,299.50 in attorneys’ fees and $1,454.55 in costs. Their request was supported by legal briefing and detailed documentation, including contemporaneous records of counsel’s time and costs.
Court’s Analysis
The court cited 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and New York Labor Law § 663(1), which provide for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs when a plaintiff is a prevailing party. Applying the lodestar approach—a method that calculates a fee based on reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—the court found the requested attorneys’ fees reasonable. The court also found the requested costs reasonable.
Disposition
The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees and costs at ECF No. 93. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate that motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.