Hill v. City of New York

Background

Shatiqua Hill brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state or local officials, against the City of New York and individual defendants. The complaint alleged that New York City police officers injured Hill, unlawfully arrested and detained her, subjected her to a strip-search and cavity inspection, and coerced her into signing a statement that she did not want hospital treatment. The complaint asserted constitutional and New York-law claims, including a claim against the City based on municipal responsibility.

The parties accepted a settlement under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The settlement provided for $5,001, plus reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and costs incurred through the date of the offer for Hill’s federal claims. After the parties could not agree on fees, Hill moved for an award. She requested $71,221.25 in attorney fees and $653.25 in expenses. The City opposed the requested amount, arguing that the lawyers’ rates were too high and that some work was excessive, redundant, or unnecessary. The City did not challenge the requested expenses.

Hourly Rates

The lawyers billed rates from $275 to $500 per hour. The court considered their experience, rates awarded in comparable civil-rights cases in the Southern District of New York, and the case-specific circumstances. It determined that the reasonable rates were:

- $425 per hour for John DePaola and Sang J. Sim; - $400 per hour for Samuel DePaola; - $350 per hour for John Kouroupas and Markus A. Wilson; and - $275 per hour for Weibo Zhang.

Time Entries

Hill’s lawyers recorded 155.65 hours. The court found that most of the time entries were appropriate, but it excluded or reduced particular entries. It excluded work related solely to New York state administrative proceedings, including work involving notices and hearings under sections 50-e and 50-h of the New York General Municipal Law, because the settlement covered fees for Hill’s federal claims and Hill did not identify language covering that state-related work.

The court also reduced time for several tasks it found excessive or redundant. These included reviewing an officer’s misconduct history, reviewing the complaint and court orders, preparing a cover letter, discussing medical records, preparing for an initial conference, researching the mediator, reviewing a hearing transcript, preparing for mediation, and related tasks. The court awarded no fees for two entries describing research and drafting of an unidentified memorandum because it could not determine the work’s purpose or relevance, and the City had not filed a motion to dismiss.

Fees for the Fee Motion

Hill separately requested $6,250 for work performed in connection with her fee motion. The court denied that request. It held that the Rule 68 offer and resulting judgment limited recoverable fees to work performed through the offer’s date. Because the work on the fee motion occurred afterward, it fell outside the parties’ agreement.

Disposition

The court granted Hill’s motion for attorney fees and expenses, with the stated reductions and exclusions. It denied the application for fees incurred in connection with the fee motion. The parties were directed to submit a proposed order calculating the award, and the Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.