Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 7, 2025

Zhang v. Great Sichuan On 3rd Ave., Inc.

Judge
Willis
Docket
1:15-cv-04558
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
13
Fee PetitionFlsaEmployment
In one sentence

In Zhang v. Great Sichuan, Judge Willis recommended granting plaintiffs’ fee motion for $84,648 in fees and $980.24 in costs.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs and their counsel, who sought fees and expenses after obtaining default judgment, and the defendants, whose liability had previously been established by default judgment.

What happened

In Zhang v. Great Sichuan On 3rd Ave., Inc., the plaintiffs won a default judgment after alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They then asked for $113,590 in attorney’s fees and $1,225.30 in expenses.

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to reasonable fees, but concluded that the lawyers’ requested rates were too high for some attorneys and that the 372 billed hours included excessive, vague, and administrative work. It recommended reducing the hours by 20% and adjusting several hourly rates.

Judge Willis recommended granting the fee motion and awarding $84,648 in attorney’s fees and $980.24 in costs and expenses. The parties had 14 days to object to the recommendation.

The detailed version

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

Case
Zhang v. Great Sichuan On 3rd Ave., Inc. · No. 1:15-cv-04558
Judge
Willis
Date
Feb. 7, 2025

Background

The plaintiffs alleged that Great Sichuan On 3rd Ave. Inc., Great Sichuan 363 Inc., and individual defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The court previously recommended entering default judgment against the defendants, and Judge John G. Koeltl adopted that recommendation. The plaintiffs then moved for attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party.

The plaintiffs requested $113,590 in fees under the lodestar method, which calculates a presumptively reasonable fee by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours. They also requested $1,225.30 in expenses. Counsel reported 372 hours billed between June 2016 and March 2024 by 11 attorneys and two law clerks.

Analysis

The report concluded that the plaintiffs were the prevailing party because default judgment had been entered and therefore were entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees under the FLSA and NYLL.

The court found that Jian Hang’s requested rate of $350 per hour and Ge Qu’s requested rate of $325 per hour were reasonable. It reduced the requested rates for several other attorneys: Guofeng Li, Paul Mendez, and Sidney Li to $275 per hour; Zhangyuxi Wang to $225; Shan Zhu and Ziyi Gao to $275; and law clerks Yu Zhang and Ge Yan to $150. The court allowed $300-per-hour rates for Keli Liu, Ken H. Maeng, and William Brown.

The court also found the requested hours excessive. The billing records included administrative tasks, more than 180 entries for reviewing filings or motions, vague descriptions, and 236 entries billing 0.1 hours for brief or trivial tasks. The court applied a 20% reduction to the 372 hours, leaving 297.6 hours.

Recommendation and Procedure

Judge Jennifer E. Willis recommended that the plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs be granted, with an award of $84,648 in fees and $980.24 in costs and expenses. The opinion is a report and recommendation rather than a stated final ruling by the district judge. The parties were given 14 days after service to file written objections, and the report states that failing to object would waive objections and preclude appellate review.

The authoritative version

Read the full 13-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.