Townsend v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
- Alison Nathan
- 1:18-cv-05939
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Townsend v. Merrill Lynch, Judge Nathan granted in part and denied in part Merrill Lynch’s request for fees and costs.
Merrill Lynch received a partial award of attorney’s fees and costs from Bruce Newell Townsend’s arbitration-related federal case; Townsend did not receive the requested relief on the fee request.
What happened
Townsend v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. involved Bruce Townsend’s effort to overturn an arbitration award favoring Merrill Lynch. The court had previously denied that effort and ruled that Merrill Lynch could seek reasonable fees for the case.
Merrill Lynch requested $7,557.70 in attorney’s fees and $15.08 in costs. Townsend did not respond to the fee request.
Judge Alison J. Nathan granted in part and denied in part the request, awarding $7,431.70 in attorney’s fees and $15.08 in costs, for a total of $7,446.78, and ordered the case closed.
The detailed version
- Townsend v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-05939
- Alison Nathan
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
Bruce Newell Townsend filed a petition seeking to overturn an arbitration award granted to Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. in an arbitration conducted by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Townsend argued principally that he did not know about the arbitration because notice was not served at either his permanent residential address or his work address until nine days before the award. He also argued that the arbitrator exceeded its authority by awarding Merrill Lynch attorney’s fees.
On September 19, 2019, the Court denied Townsend’s petition. It also ruled that the parties’ contract entitled Merrill Lynch to reasonable attorney’s fees for the federal court action and directed Merrill Lynch to submit an accounting. Merrill Lynch filed its accounting on October 2, 2019. Townsend did not file a response.
Legal standard
The Court explained that it has broad discretion to determine reasonable fees. It used the lodestar method: determining reasonable hourly rates, determining the number of hours reasonably worked, and multiplying those figures. The party seeking fees must provide enough evidence to support the requested rates and hours.
Attorney’s fees
Merrill Lynch sought $7,557.70 in fees based on 30.6 hours billed by four attorneys. The Court found reasonable the hourly rates of $294 for Sean Duffy and $273 for Jason Roberts. It also found that approximately 30 hours was reasonable for the litigation because Townsend had filed a petition and memorandum, Merrill Lynch had submitted an answer, an opposition memorandum, and exhibits, and the dispute involved procedural issues concerning service.
The Court excluded the 0.5 hours billed by Jeff Csercsevits because Merrill Lynch provided insufficient information about his experience and could not establish that his hourly rate was reasonable. The Court’s fee calculation awarded $1,881.60 for Duffy, $1,010.10 for Roberts, and $4,540.00 for Cynthia Morgan, for a lodestar total of $7,431.70. The Court saw no reason to change that amount.
Costs and disposition
Merrill Lynch sought $15.08 for sending a package to opposing counsel. The Court found that expense reasonable and adequately supported it. The request for fees and costs was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Merrill Lynch was awarded $7,431.70 in attorney’s fees and $15.08 in costs, totaling $7,446.78. The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment and close the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.