Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. v. Goldfarb Properties, Inc.

Background

Fair Housing Justice Center, Inc. (FHJC) sued Pelican Management, Inc., Fordham One Company, LLC, and Cedar Two Company, LLC over policies requiring prospective renters to have annual income equal to at least 43 times their monthly rent. After a bench trial, the court found for FHJC on disability-discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, as well as a source-of-income-discrimination claim under the city law. The court also ruled against the defendants on their counterclaim seeking a declaration that the 2019 policy was lawful as to applicants with partial rental subsidies. The court awarded FHJC $240,540 in compensatory damages, $750,000 in punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Second Circuit later affirmed that decision.

FHJC then sought $1,535,711 in attorney fees and $46,575.61 in costs under the fee-shifting provisions of the Fair Housing Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants did not dispute that FHJC was the prevailing party or challenge the hourly rates for several of FHJC’s attorneys, but they objected to other rates, categories of work, and billing entries.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the lodestar method, which generally calculates a fee by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates. It emphasized that district courts have discretion to make practical percentage reductions rather than conduct a perfect audit of every billing entry.

The court declined to reduce the $550 hourly rate requested for associate Michelle Yankson. It found that her described litigation experience and judicial clerkships were comparable to those of another associate whose rate the defendants did not challenge.

The court set the reasonable hourly rate for paralegal work at $200 rather than the requested $225. The court found that the paralegals’ work was extensive, substantive, and important to the litigation, but concluded that $200 was the appropriate rate.

The court declined to award fees for work performed solely on behalf of Alfred Spooner because Spooner’s release covered claims for fees and costs related to his efforts to rent an apartment. But the court recognized that some work performed before Spooner’s dismissal benefited both plaintiffs and contributed to FHJC’s success. Because the record did not permit a precise separation of that work, the court imposed a 15% reduction on FHJC’s pre-settlement fees, excluding work on Spooner’s settlement itself. The court stated that this reduction also accounted for potentially vague or unrelated pre-settlement work.

The court did not deduct the $61,195 in fees connected to FHJC’s unsuccessful motion to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim. Although the motion was denied, the court found no indication that FHJC pursued it unreasonably. The court also refused to deduct fees for preparing the first amended complaint or for preparing Kiana Glanton to testify at trial.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that FHJC’s overall success was limited. It found that FHJC prevailed on all three claims in its operative complaint and received all the relief it requested, including damages and injunctive relief. The court therefore found no basis to reduce the fees for incomplete success.

The court also declined to reduce fees based on entries billed in 0.1-hour increments, finding that the number and nature of those entries were not inherently excessive. It found that some entries labeled clerical involved substantive or essential litigation work. However, entries that the defendants identified as entirely clerical were to be compensated at the $200 hourly rate used for paralegal work. The court applied no reduction to entries identified as only partly clerical.

Disposition

The court ordered three adjustments to FHJC’s fee request: paralegal time was limited to $200 per hour; entries identified as entirely clerical were also limited to $200 per hour; and pre-settlement fees were reduced by 15%. The court made no reductions for Yankson’s work, the motion to dismiss the counterclaim, the amended complaint, work involving Glanton, FHJC’s overall success, 0.1-hour entries, or partly clerical entries.

The court did not state a final dollar amount for fees and costs. Instead, it directed FHJC to submit an amended fee application reflecting the court’s findings by April 7, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the fee motion.