Liriano Urena v. 0325 Tuta Corp.
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-03751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Liriano Urena v. 0325 Tuta Corp., Judge Gorenstein left in place a recommendation denying attorneys’ fees because counsel did not show contemporaneous time records.
The plaintiffs and their attorneys, whose request for attorneys’ fees was not awarded under the recommendation left unchanged by the court.
What happened
In Liriano Urena v. 0325 Tuta Corp., the plaintiffs sued for unpaid wages under federal and New York law. After the defendants’ default, the court recommended entering judgment against the defendants other than Miyiera “Doe” and recommended denying the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer submitted declarations saying that the lawyers’ time records were accurate and contemporaneous. But the declarations also indicated that some records were compiled weekly and did not explain when the entries were created or how the lawyer knew about the other attorneys’ recording practices.
The court declined to amend the recommendation because the records did not show that the work entries were made as or near the time the work was performed. Judge Gorenstein extended the deadline for objections to the recommendation to November 8, 2022.
The detailed version
- Liriano Urena v. 0325 Tuta Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-03751
- George Daniels
- Oct. 25, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Rafael Alejandro Liriano Urena, Charlie Uverea, and Abisai Nava brought claims for unpaid wages under the New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The defendants were subject to a default judgment, and the case was referred for an inquest to determine the resulting judgment. On September 16, 2022, the court issued a Report and Recommendation recommending judgment against all defendants except Miyiera “Doe.”
During the inquest, plaintiffs’ counsel applied for attorneys’ fees and submitted billing records. The court initially recommended denying the fee request because it lacked a sworn statement confirming both the number of hours and that the records had been made contemporaneously. The court then allowed counsel to submit a supplemental application and later gave counsel another opportunity to address whether the records were contemporaneous.
Fee-record requirement
The court explained that attorneys seeking fees ordinarily must submit contemporaneous time records showing, for each attorney, the date, hours worked, and nature of the work. A record is contemporaneous when it is prepared as the work is completed or at or near the time the work is performed. The court described this as a strict rule, with exceptions allowed only in rare circumstances.
Counsel William K. Oates stated that his own entries were accurate and contemporaneous. For the other attorneys and paralegals, however, he stated that the firm’s practice was to record time accurately and contemporaneously on a daily or weekly basis. The court found that the reference to weekly compilation did not satisfy the requirement that entries be made as the work was completed. The court also found that Oates’s affidavit did not explain why he had personal knowledge of the other timekeepers’ practices.
The court further found that counsel had not shown why this case justified an exception to the contemporaneous-record requirement. It noted that the firm routinely handled wage-and-hour cases and that counsel had represented that the attorneys involved had extensive labor and employment experience.
Ruling
The court held that the record did not show that the time entries were created at or near the time of the work. It therefore did not amend the September 16, 2022 Report and Recommendation, including its conclusion that attorneys’ fees should not be awarded. The court extended the deadline for objections to the Report and Recommendation to November 8, 2022. Requests for any further extension were to be presented to Judge Daniels.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.