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

Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Inc.

Judge
Sarah Netburn
Docket
1:20-cv-02969
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Fee PetitionClass ActionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Judge Netburn ordered Moshe Gold to pay $10,341.48 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

Who this affects

Plaintiff Israel Martinez and his attorneys, and Defendant Moshe Gold. The order requires Gold to pay the specified fees and costs and requires Plaintiff’s counsel to report on payment and the next steps in the litigation.

What happened

In Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Plaintiff’s lawyers sought $13,046.48 for efforts to obtain a complete and accurate list of class members. The request followed an earlier order requiring Defendants to pay reasonable fees connected to that effort. Defendant Gold had offered $5,500, and Defendants did not oppose the larger invoice.

The court found the lawyers’ hourly rates reasonable. It approved 42.6 hours worked by senior associate Andrew C. Weiss but rejected $2,705 for partner time spent monitoring or reviewing that work, finding that a reasonable client would not pay that amount. The court also approved $66.48 in costs for mailing, travel, and online research.

Judge Netburn directed Defendant Gold to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys $10,341.48 in fees and costs by March 14, 2025. Plaintiff’s counsel must report by March 21 whether Gold paid and explain how Plaintiff intends to proceed, including whether the court should recommend striking Gold’s answer and entering a default judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Martinez v. JLM Decorating, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02969
Judge
Sarah Netburn
Date
Mar. 7, 2025

Background

The court had previously ordered Defendants to pay all reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Plaintiff in efforts to obtain a complete and accurate list of class members. Plaintiff’s counsel was directed to submit a proposed invoice. Before that invoice was filed, Defendants’ prior counsel submitted an offer of judgment for $5,500 in legal fees. Plaintiff’s counsel then submitted an invoice totaling $13,046.48, and Defendants filed no opposition.

The invoice covered work by three attorneys: partner Michael J. Borrelli billed 3.7 hours, partner Alexander T. Coleman billed 3.5 hours, and lead attorney and senior associate Andrew C. Weiss billed 42.6 hours. The court held a hearing on the fee issue after Defendants’ prior counsel argued that the request was inflated and that the client should not have to pay for work by attorneys other than the primary lawyer.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the firm’s hourly rates—$350 to $400 for partners and $250 for a senior associate—were reasonable and consistent with rates for similar actions in the Southern District of New York. It then applied the standard requiring consideration of what a reasonable paying client would pay while seeking to litigate effectively at the lowest necessary cost.

The court declined to award $2,705 for the partners’ time spent monitoring the case and reviewing the senior associate’s work. It stated that a reasonable paying client would not pay that amount for those services. The court found the 42.6 hours billed by Mr. Weiss reasonable in light of the litigation, court appearances, and his research, drafting, and filing of motions and letters despite Defendants’ failure to meaningfully comply with court orders. The opinion states that the proposed amount of $12,980.00 was reduced to $10,275.00 to include only Mr. Weiss’s compensable hours. The court also found $66.48 in costs reasonable.

Ruling

Judge Netburn directed Defendant Moshe Gold to pay Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $10,341.48 no later than March 14, 2025. By March 21, or earlier, Plaintiff’s counsel must file a letter stating whether Gold satisfied his obligations and explaining how Plaintiff intends to proceed in the litigation. The letter must also address whether the court should recommend that District Judge Abrams strike Gold’s answer and enter a default judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.