Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 19, 2022

Wang v. Yong Lee Inc.

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
1:17-cv-09582
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
6
Fee PetitionEmployment
In one sentence

In Wang v. Yong Lee Inc., Judge Oetken granted counsel’s fee motion for $128,866 in fees and $5,209.57 in costs.

Who this affects

Ming En Wang’s counsel receives the awarded fees and costs, and the defendants are subject to a judgment for $134,075.57.

What happened

In Wang v. Yong Lee Inc., a jury had found for Ming En Wang, and the Court had entered a $155,522.18 judgment. Wang’s counsel asked for $145,096.57 in fees and costs for this case and three related bankruptcy proceedings.

The defendants did not oppose the request. The Court reviewed the requested hourly rates and work records, reduced John Troy’s requested rate from $650 to $550 per hour, and found the other rates and hours reasonable. It also found that work in the bankruptcy proceedings could be included because it was necessary to resolve the wage claims.

Judge Oetken granted the motion to the extent of $128,866 in fees and $5,209.57 in costs, for a total of $134,075.57. The Court ordered a judgment for that amount and directed the Clerk to close the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Wang v. Yong Lee Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-09582
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Dec. 19, 2022

Background

On November 1, 2022, the Court entered judgment for Ming En Wang in the amount of $155,522.18, based on a jury verdict in his favor. Wang’s counsel moved for attorney’s fees and costs totaling $145,096.57. The request covered work in the wage-and-hour case and three related bankruptcy proceedings: In re Jin Yang, No. 19-bk-43583; Wang v. Yang, No. 19-ad-01127; and In re Yong Lee, Inc., No. 19-bk-11909.

The defendants filed no opposition, so the Court treated the request as unopposed. Under the New York Labor Law, a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The Court used the “lodestar” method, which calculates a presumptively reasonable fee by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours worked, followed by any appropriate adjustment.

Analysis

Counsel requested an hourly rate of $650 for Managing Attorney John Troy. The Court reduced that rate to $550 because Troy had previously been awarded that rate in similar wage-and-hour cases in the district. The Court found reasonable the requested rates of $400 for Managing Associate Aaron B. Schweitzer’s legal work, $200 for his travel and managerial tasks, $150 and $200 for Tiffany Troy’s work before and after becoming an associate, and $200 for Managing Clerk Preethi Kilaru.

The Court found that the recorded hours were reasonable. It also concluded that fees for the bankruptcy proceedings could be awarded because such work was necessary to resolve the claims in the wage-and-hour lawsuit. The Court corrected an apparent calculation error in the requested amount for Tiffany Troy’s work, treating the amount as $4,423.50 rather than $423.50.

Disposition

The Court granted the motion for attorney’s fees and costs to the extent of $128,866.00 in fees and $5,209.57 in costs, for a grand total of $134,075.57. The Court ordered that a judgment for fees and costs in that amount be issued and directed the Clerk to close the motion at Docket Number 95.

The authoritative version

Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.