Cruz v. Bar 9 Entertainment, Corp.

Background

Miriam Cruz brought this action against Bar 9 Entertainment, Corp., alleging that the defendant’s website was not fully accessible or independently usable by Cruz and other blind or visually impaired people. She asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. Although Cruz initially presented the case on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, she did not pursue class certification.

The court transferred the case from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York. After mediation and an amended complaint, Cruz accepted an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court dismissed the action on March 21, 2024, and entered a revised judgment on May 24, 2024. That judgment included costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney and expert fees incurred through November 24, 2023, in addition to the parties’ stipulated $1,000 in compensatory damages.

Fee Request and Objections

Cruz’s counsel submitted a one-page itemized invoice seeking $5,927 in costs, expenses, and attorney fees. The request included a $450 hourly rate, 12 hours of attorney work, and $977 in costs and expenses. The costs included a $402 filing fee, a $75 service-of-process fee, and a $500 expert report.

Bar 9 Entertainment asked the court to reduce the award to $1,917. It challenged the amount of time claimed, the hourly rate, and the expert-report charge. It did not dispute the filing fee, service fee, or the $1,000 in compensatory damages. Cruz asked the court to reject Bar 9 Entertainment’s objection as late but did not substantively respond to most of its arguments. The court accepted the objection because it was only one day late and Cruz had not shown prejudice.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a fee applicant ordinarily must provide contemporaneous time records showing the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. Cruz’s counsel did not provide supporting documentation, a narrative explanation, or a justification for each item. The court held that this omission did not automatically bar an award, but it weighed heavily against awarding the full amount requested.

The court rejected the $500 expert-report expense. The case was resolved without motion practice or discovery, and the court found no need for an expert report. The court awarded only the $402 filing fee and $75 service fee, for total costs and expenses of $477.

For attorney fees, the court used the standard method of multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours. It found the $450 hourly rate reasonable but concluded that 12 hours was excessive for this routine, noncomplex website-accessibility case. The court cited several examples, including the time claimed for a short venue-transfer letter, brief logistical emails, a 14-minute court appearance recorded as one hour, and minimal changes to the amended complaint. The court agreed with the defendant’s proposed reduction to 4.8 hours.

Ruling

Applying the $450 hourly rate to 4.8 hours, the court awarded $2,160 in attorney fees. Combined with $477 in costs and expenses, the total award for fees, costs, and expenses was $2,637. Judge Margaret M. Garnett directed the Clerk to enter judgment for Cruz totaling $3,637, consisting of the $2,637 fee-and-cost award plus the parties’ stipulated $1,000 in compensatory damages.