Greyhawk Hathorne Lender, LLC v. Vella
- Lewis Liman
- 1:25-cv-02709
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Greyhawk Hawthorne Lender v. Vella, Judge Liman granted in part and denied in part Greyhawk’s fee motion, awarding fees and costs plus interest.
Greyhawk Hawthorne Lender, LLC received a reduced award of attorneys’ fees and costs from Zachary A. Vella after the court’s earlier remand and transfer rulings. Vella opposed the fee request and was affected by the fee award.
What happened
Greyhawk Hawthorne Lender, LLC v. Vella involved Greyhawk’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs after the court sent the case back to state court and denied Vella’s request to transfer it. The underlying dispute concerned Greyhawk’s effort to enforce a guaranty against Vella for a loan involving borrower entities that had filed for bankruptcy.
Greyhawk requested $197,693.66, including $195,438.60 in attorneys’ fees and $2,255.06 in expenses. Vella opposed the requested fee amount. The court found that the requested hourly rates were too high and that the lawyers had billed too many hours, including time spent on internal communications and administrative tasks.
Judge Liman granted in part and denied in part the fee motion. He awarded Greyhawk attorneys’ fees and costs plus post-judgment interest, but reduced the requested amount; the opinion states the award as $62,060.60 in one passage and $62,060 in its conclusion. The court directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Greyhawk Hathorne Lender, LLC v. Vella · No. 1:25-cv-02709
- Lewis Liman
- July 31, 2025
Background
The court had previously granted Greyhawk Hawthorne Lender, LLC’s motion to return the case to New York state court, denied Zachary A. Vella’s motion to transfer the case, and awarded Greyhawk reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The underlying action concerns a loan involving borrower entities associated with Vella. Vella personally guaranteed the loan, and Greyhawk later received the lender’s rights under the loan and guaranty. After the borrowers allegedly failed to make required payments, Greyhawk sued Vella in New York state court to enforce the guaranty and sought $46,851,027.30 plus accrued interest.
The borrowers, but not Vella, filed for bankruptcy in the Central District of California. Vella removed Greyhawk’s state-court case to federal court, arguing that the case was connected to the bankruptcy and fell within federal bankruptcy jurisdiction. The court remanded the case and awarded fees because it found Vella’s arguments objectively unreasonable and intended to prolong the litigation.
Fee Request and Governing Standard
Greyhawk then requested $197,693.66: $195,438.60 in attorneys’ fees and $2,255.06 in expenses for 234.20 hours. Vella did not dispute the requested expenses but opposed the requested fees.
The court used the lodestar method, which calculates a reasonable fee by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours. The party requesting fees must provide enough information to show that both the rates and hours are reasonable. Courts may reduce time that is excessive, repetitive, unnecessary, or administrative.
Hourly Rates
Greyhawk requested hourly rates of $1,095 for David Zalman, $936 for William C. Heck, $960 for Randall L. Morrison Jr., and $605 for junior associates Nathan Verrilli and Cole Daly. The court found the requested rates unreasonable for this relatively straightforward action to collect on a guaranty.
The court approved hourly rates of $800 for Zalman and Heck, $550 for Morrison, and $300 for Verrilli and Daly. It concluded that the case was not sufficiently complex to justify the requested rates, particularly the rates above $1,000 for the more senior lawyers and the $605 rate for the inexperienced junior associates.
Hours and Expenses
Greyhawk sought compensation for 55 hours by Zalman and Heck, 87.4 hours by Morrison, and 91.8 hours by Verrilli and Daly. The court held that time spent opposing Vella’s transfer motion could be included because the transfer motion resulted from the removal and involved issues closely connected to the remand motion.
The court nevertheless found the overall time excessive. Although the remand issues required substantial briefing and oral argument, the briefs were relatively short, and Vella’s core argument lacked a reasonable basis. The court also identified numerous internal communications and administrative tasks, such as coordinating filings, ordering hearing transcripts, and coordinating with a copy center. It reduced each attorney’s hours by 50 percent.
The court accepted the $2,255.06 in expenses as undisputed and calculated reasonable attorneys’ fees of $59,805. Adding the expenses produced the stated award.
Disposition
Judge Liman’s order states that the attorneys’ fee motion was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It awarded Greyhawk attorneys’ fees and costs plus post-judgment interest. One earlier passage states the total award as $62,060.60, while the conclusion states the award as $62,060. The Clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.