Sumlin v. Hex NYC, LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-01406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sumlin v. Hex NYC, Judge Furman granted Sumlin’s motion for reasonable attorney’s fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Dennis Sumlin and Hex NYC, LLC; the ruling granted Sumlin’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
What happened
Sumlin v. Hex NYC, LLC concerned Dennis Sumlin’s request for attorney’s fees under a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He sought fees, litigation expenses, and costs on behalf of himself and others similarly situated.
The motion relied on the legal standard that fees should generally be based on a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by the reasonable time required. The court also considered whether the request was supported by detailed time records showing when the work was done, how long it took, and what work was performed.
Judge Jesse Furman granted Sumlin’s motion. The court found that Sumlin was entitled to reasonable fees and that the requested fees were adequately documented, although it said the damages statement should provide more detail in the future, including work-completion dates. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion on the docket.
The detailed version
- Sumlin v. Hex NYC, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-01406
- Jesse Furman
- June 5, 2025
Background
Dennis Sumlin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, moved for attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs from Hex NYC, LLC. The motion invoked 42 U.S.C. § 12205, which permits a court, in its discretion, to award a prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs in an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Legal Standard
The motion described the lodestar method, which calculates a presumptively reasonable fee by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours required for the case. It also cited the need for contemporaneous time records identifying, for each attorney, the date of the work, the hours spent, and the nature of the work.
Ruling
The court granted Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees. It agreed that Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and that the requested fees were adequately documented. The court noted, however, that Plaintiff’s statement of damages would benefit from additional specificity in the future, including the dates on which work was completed. The opinion does not state the amount of fees awarded. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 18.
Disposition
Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees was granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.