Li v. Chinatown Take-Out Inc.

Background

Shanfa Li and Guiming Shao sued Chinatown Take-Out Inc., doing business as China Town Take Out, and Yechiel Meiteles for damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants jointly and severally liable for unpaid regular wages, unpaid overtime, and liquidated and statutory damages. The court later awarded the plaintiffs $50,956.00 in attorneys’ fees and $3,138.01 in costs for the trial-level proceedings.

Both sides appealed. The plaintiffs challenged the amount of unpaid work and statutory damages, while the defendants challenged findings about regular wages, damages, meal periods, and the denial of their motion to alter or amend the judgment. The opinion states that the Second Circuit affirmed the decision on May 7, 2020, and also states that the defendants’ cross-appeal was dismissed. The plaintiffs then moved for $15,054.50 in attorneys’ fees incurred during the appellate proceedings.

Legal standard

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable attorneys’ fees. The court calculated the fee using the lodestar method: the reasonable number of hours multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, with adjustments for case-specific circumstances. The court explained that a plaintiff may recover fees for successfully defending a favorable judgment on appeal, but fees for unsuccessful and separate claims generally should not be included.

Court’s analysis

The court ruled that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties as to the defendants’ cross-appeal because they successfully defended the trial judgment against that challenge. The plaintiffs therefore could recover reasonable fees for defending the cross-appeal, even though their direct appeal seeking a larger award was unsuccessful.

The court declined to award fees for the entire appeal. It found that the direct appeal and cross-appeal addressed different issues and that the direct appeal could be separated for purposes of calculating fees. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had initiated appellate litigation to seek a larger damages award, rather than merely defending the judgment.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for 40.47 hours of work by attorneys John Troy and Aaron Schweitzer. The court found that Troy’s time related only to the unsuccessful direct appeal and was not compensable. It set Schweitzer’s reasonable hourly rate at $150, rather than the requested $350, because the court had previously used the $150 rate and found no evidence of appellate experience supporting a higher rate.

The court further reduced the hours because the billing records used block billing, contained vague descriptions such as “brief do” and “joint app’x do,” and included administrative work such as paying for copies and removing document comments. Considering the plaintiffs’ limited success and the billing problems, the court applied a 70 percent across-the-board reduction to the requested hours.

Disposition

Judge Judith C. McCarthy granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion for appellate attorneys’ fees. The court awarded the plaintiffs $1,821.15 in attorneys’ fees and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.