136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Razinski
- John Keenan
- 1:19-cv-05656
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
136 Field Point Circle Holding Co. v. Razinski: Judge Keenan granted in part and denied in part a fee motion, awarding $40,914.84.
136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC received $40,914.84 in attorney’s fees. Alexander Razinski and Tanya Razinski were held responsible for that award under the Master Agreement. The court also denied their request for Rule 11 sanctions.
What happened
In 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Razinski, the plaintiff sought attorney’s fees after winning a $1 million breach-of-contract judgment against Alexander Razinski and Tanya Razinski. The fee request relied on the parties’ agreement, which required payment of reasonable fees connected to a breach.
The plaintiff initially sought more than $100,000, later reduced its request to $56,826.16, and provided billing records for two attorneys. The Razinskis, who represented themselves, challenged the fees as unsupported, excessive, duplicative, and unreasonable. They also requested sanctions against the plaintiff’s lawyers under Rule 11, the federal rule governing certain improper filings.
Judge John F. Keenan held that the agreement required the Razinskis to pay reasonable attorney’s fees, but reduced the requested hourly rates and award. He granted in part and denied in part the fee motion, awarding $40,914.84, and denied the Razinskis’ sanctions request as procedurally improper.
The detailed version
- 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Razinski · No. 1:19-cv-05656
- John Keenan
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC (136 FPC) sued Alexander Razinski and Tanya Razinski for breach of contract. In an earlier ruling, Judge William H. Pauley III granted 136 FPC summary judgment and entered judgment for $1,000,000. The present opinion addressed 136 FPC’s motion for attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and section 11 of the parties’ Master Agreement.
The Master Agreement stated that the Razinskis would jointly and individually reimburse 136 FPC for reasonable attorney’s fees and related expenses caused by a breach of the agreement. The court held that this language clearly entitled 136 FPC to recover reasonable fees. It rejected the Razinskis’ argument that 136 FPC had given up its right to seek fees in a separate state-court proceeding.
Fee Request and Documentation
The plaintiff’s billing records listed 180.1 hours and $114,670.98 in fees, based on hourly rates of $750 for partner Mitchell Baker and $500 for associate Katie Wendle. 136 FPC initially stated that it was seeking reimbursement of $100,406.89, but did not explain which billing entries made up that amount. After the Razinskis objected to $43,580.73 in billing entries, 136 FPC voluntarily withdrew those entries and stated that it was seeking $56,826.16.
The court ordered 136 FPC to identify the specific hours and fees included in the reduced request. The plaintiff submitted modified billing records showing 87.36 hours for Baker and 18.38 hours for Wendle, but the records totaled $70,340, not the requested $56,826.16, and did not explain the $13,513.84 difference. The court therefore could not determine the precise combination of hours for each attorney included in the request.
Reasonableness of Hours and Rates
The court found that the 105.7 uncontested hours reflected in the modified records reasonably accounted for more than two years of litigation and the successful summary-judgment motion. The descriptions of the work were sufficiently specific, and the hours spent on each task were reasonable. Because 136 FPC had withdrawn the entries challenged as excessive, duplicative, or vague, the court made no further reduction based on the hours.
The court found the requested hourly rates unreasonable. It determined that approximately $550 per hour was reasonable for Baker, who had 40 years of legal experience, because the contract case was straightforward, the litigation was relatively short, and the opposing parties were representing themselves. It determined that approximately $350 per hour was reasonable for Wendle based on her experience and the straightforward nature of the case.
Because the plaintiff had not provided enough information to calculate the fee precisely using each attorney’s reasonable rate, the court applied a 28% reduction to the $56,826.16 request. The reduction was $15,911.32, resulting in an attorney’s-fee award of $40,914.84.
Disposition
The court’s conclusion states that 136 FPC’s motion for attorney’s fees was granted to the extent that 136 FPC was awarded $40,914.84. Earlier in the opinion, the court states that the motion was granted in part and denied in part. The Razinskis’ request for Rule 11 sanctions was denied because it was not made in a separate motion as required by the rule. The Clerk was directed to terminate the fee motions and close the case.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.