Wu v. Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc.
- Figueredo
- 1:17-cv-04661
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Wu v. Sushi Nomado, Judge Figueredo granted defendants’ fee motion, ordering plaintiffs’ counsel to pay $1,505 for work on a sanctions motion.
Counsel for the plaintiffs, including the Troy Law Firm identified in the opinion, must pay defendants $1,505 in attorneys’ fees connected to the sanctions motion; defendants are the recipients of the award.
What happened
Wu v. Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc. involved defendants’ request for $1,505 in attorneys’ fees after a successful sanctions motion. The sanctions motion concerned plaintiff Jian Wu’s continued failure to appear for a deposition, and an earlier order required plaintiffs’ counsel to pay reasonable fees and expenses related to that motion.
Defense attorney Michael Brand submitted time records showing 5.1 hours of work. Plaintiffs did not oppose the requested fee amount. The court reviewed whether Brand’s hourly rate and time spent were reasonable.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion and ordered counsel for the plaintiffs to pay defendants $1,505. The court approved the requested amount and directed the clerk to close the motion.
The detailed version
- Wu v. Sushi Nomado of Manhattan, Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-04661
- Figueredo
- Dec. 8, 2022
Background
Defendants moved for an award of attorneys’ fees after succeeding on a motion for sanctions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b) and 37(b). The sanctions motion was based on plaintiff Jian Wu’s continued failure to make himself available for a deposition after the court had set a deadline. Plaintiffs’ counsel opposed the sanctions motion.
On October 29, 2021, Judge Debra C. Freeman recommended that the Troy Law Firm, which represents plaintiffs, pay the reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses defendants incurred in bringing the sanctions motion because of what the recommendation called the firm’s “egregious conduct.” On February 28, 2022, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil adopted that recommendation. The court later directed defendants to submit an application for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Defendants requested $1,505 in attorneys’ fees and did not request separate costs. Plaintiffs informed the court that they did not oppose the motion or the proposed sanction award.
Reasonableness of the Fee Request
The court applied the usual fee-award method: determining a reasonable hourly rate and multiplying it by the number of hours reasonably spent. Defense attorney Michael Brand, a senior associate at the Law Offices of Vincent S. Wong, requested an hourly rate of $350. He stated that he had practiced law since 2009, had more than 12 years of federal and state litigation experience, and handled almost all of his firm’s federal litigation after the named partner.
The court found the requested rate reasonable, citing comparable rates approved for experienced senior associates in similar Fair Labor Standards Act cases. The court also noted that, based on the requested total of $1,505, the effective hourly rate was approximately $295. Brand’s time records showed that he worked 5.1 hours on the sanctions motion. The court found that time reasonable because the work included researching, drafting, and editing the motion, corresponding with plaintiffs’ counsel, and reviewing plaintiffs’ opposition. The court noted that the motion was a four-page, single-spaced letter with supporting legal authority and email documentation.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees. Counsel for the plaintiffs was ordered to pay defendants $1,505. The clerk was directed to terminate the fee motion at ECF No. 152. The opinion notes that Brand’s time records would have supported $1,785 at $350 per hour, but the court assessed $1,505 because that was the amount requested and plaintiffs did not oppose it.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.