Roman Maria v. Rouge Tomate Chelsea LLC
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:18-cv-09826
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Roman Maria v. Rouge Tomate Chelsea LLC, Judge Broderick overruled plaintiffs’ objection but allowed supporting evidence by March 19, 2021.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and their opportunity to provide evidence supporting the submitted invoice. It also left in place Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s determination that the existing evidence did not support an attorneys’ fee award.
What happened
Roman Maria v. Rouge Tomate Chelsea LLC arose from plaintiffs’ claims under federal and New York wage laws. The court had already entered a judgment against the defendants who failed to appear and sent the damages issue to a magistrate judge.
The magistrate judge recommended that plaintiffs receive no attorneys’ fees because their invoice was not supported by evidence of records made when the attorneys performed the work. Plaintiffs objected and argued that the invoice form, which had been accepted in another case, supported their request.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick ruled that the magistrate judge’s decision was not clearly mistaken or contrary to the law, so he overruled the objection. Judge Broderick nevertheless allowed plaintiffs to submit evidence, including a sworn statement, by March 19, 2021, showing that the invoice was based on contemporaneous attorney time records.
The detailed version
- Roman Maria v. Rouge Tomate Chelsea LLC · No. 1:18-cv-09826
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The clerk entered defaults against Rouge Tomate Chelsea LLC, Rouge Tomate Corp., Rogue Tomate New York LLC, Emmanuel Verstrauten, and Christian Molina. After the defendants did not appear at a hearing concerning default judgment, the court later entered default judgment against them. The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein to determine damages.
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein issued a report and recommendation concluding that plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys’ fees. He found that plaintiffs had not submitted competent evidence showing that their invoice was based on contemporaneous time records—records made at the time the attorneys performed the work. Plaintiffs objected and asked either for fees equal to one-third of the total recovery or for an increase to the amount reflected in their billing records.
Issue and standard of review
The district court reviewed the magistrate judge’s discovery-related ruling under the deferential standard that permits changing the ruling only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A ruling is clearly erroneous when the reviewing court has a firm conviction that a mistake was made; it is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant law, rules, or statutes. The court also explained that new factual evidence generally cannot be presented for the first time in an objection to a magistrate judge’s discovery ruling.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick overruled plaintiffs’ objection. He held that, even though he had accepted the same billing-record form in other cases, he could not conclude that Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court therefore did not change the determination that the submitted invoice lacked sufficient supporting evidence.
The court allowed plaintiffs to submit additional evidence, including a sworn declaration, showing that the invoice was based on contemporaneous attorney time records. The court would review such evidence if submitted by March 19, 2021.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.