Liriano Urena v. 0325 Tuta Corp.
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-03751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liriano Urena v. 0325 Tuta Corp., Magistrate Judge Gorenstein granted plaintiffs leave to submit an affidavit about their attorneys’ fee records.
The plaintiffs and their attorneys’ fee application were affected. The order gave the plaintiffs an opportunity to provide additional evidence about when the billing entries were created.
What happened
In Liriano Urena v. 0325 Tuta Corp., the plaintiffs asked to file additional material supporting their request for attorneys’ fees. The district court allowed that supplemental filing, and the plaintiffs’ attorney submitted a declaration about the billing records.
The declaration said the attorneys recorded their time accurately and not randomly. But it did not say when each time entry was made in relation to the work performed. The court therefore could not determine that the records were created at the time, or near the time, of the work.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the plaintiffs leave to file another affidavit by October 21, 2022, addressing whether the records were contemporaneous. Without another affidavit, the existing Report and Recommendation would not be changed and the case would be decided on the current record.
The detailed version
- Liriano Urena v. 0325 Tuta Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-03751
- George Daniels
- Oct. 17, 2022
Background
On September 27, 2022, the plaintiffs sought permission to file a supplemental application for attorneys’ fees accompanied by a sworn statement about the hours worked and the creation of the time records. The district court granted that request on September 29, 2022. On October 5, 2022, the plaintiffs’ attorney filed a declaration concerning the billing records.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that contemporaneous billing records are records showing that attorneys made entries as the work was completed. A fee applicant must show that the underlying entries were prepared at or near the time the work was performed. The attorney’s declaration stated only that the attorneys recorded their time accurately and not randomly. It did not state when the individual entries were created in relation to the tasks performed. The court therefore could not find that the submitted records were contemporaneous time records.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted the plaintiffs leave to file an affidavit by October 21, 2022, addressing this deficiency. The order stated that if no further affidavit was filed, the Report and Recommendation would not be amended and the case would be decided on the current record.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.