Hu v. 226 Wild Ginger Inc.

Background

Jianhui Hu, Zhizhong Liu, Jinquan Yin, Xing Xing, and Yan Feng Cheng sued 226 Wild Ginger, Inc., 51 Wild Ginger, Inc., and Shan You Chen for unpaid wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The court entered a default judgment against the defendants and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Fox to determine damages.

Magistrate Judge Fox directed the plaintiffs to submit evidence supporting their damages and attorney’s-fee requests. He later ordered an inquest hearing and specifically required the plaintiffs to be prepared to provide competent evidence supporting those claims, including evidence supporting counsel’s request for attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs did not provide evidence concerning attorney’s fees and did not ask for additional time to do so.

Prior ruling and motion

Magistrate Judge Fox recommended awarding the plaintiffs neither damages nor attorney’s fees. The plaintiffs objected and separately moved for attorney’s fees and costs. In its July 31, 2020 order, the court declined to adopt the recommendation concerning damages but accepted the recommendation denying attorney’s fees.

The plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Rules 59 and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, or the need to prevent serious injustice.

Court’s analysis

The plaintiffs cited authority stating that prevailing plaintiffs may receive reasonable attorney’s fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law when the fees are supported by evidence. They also cited cases in which courts reserved the fee issue or allowed later submissions. But they did not identify authority allowing parties to disregard a magistrate judge’s order requiring evidence supporting a fee request.

The court emphasized that the party seeking attorney’s fees must provide enough evidence to establish the reasonableness and necessity of the hours worked and rates charged. This ordinarily includes contemporaneous time records. The plaintiffs’ counsel provided no such evidence in response to Magistrate Judge Fox’s order and did not explain why unusual circumstances prevented compliance. The court also found no basis to conclude that Magistrate Judge Fox lacked authority to address damages and attorney’s fees in the same proceeding.

Disposition

Judge John G. Koeltl denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. The denial was without prejudice to the magistrate judge’s consideration of the plaintiffs’ new motion for attorney’s fees. The Clerk was directed to close Docket No. 93.