Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 15, 2023

Lee v. New Kang Suh Inc.

Judge
Paul Davison
Docket
7:17-cv-09502
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
EmploymentFlsaFee Petition
In one sentence

In Lee v. New Kang Suh, Judge Davison awarded Young Min Lee $59,542.50 in fees and $3,824.13 in costs after her FLSA victory.

Who this affects

Young Min Lee received $59,542.50 in attorney fees and $3,824.13 in costs; New Kang Suh, Inc. and Myung Sook Choi were ordered to pay the total award of $63,366.63.

What happened

In Young Min Lee v. New Kang Suh, Inc. and Myung Sook Choi, Lee won damages on her Fair Labor Standards Act claims after a bench trial. The court had previously dismissed her New York Labor Law claims, and later awarded her $53,273.50 in damages.

Lee asked for $89,720 in attorney fees and $3,837.23 in litigation costs. The request was not opposed. The court reduced several attorneys’ hourly rates and reduced billed hours for administrative work, trivial entries, a lunch break, and travel time. It also rejected an unsupported $13.10 expense.

Judge Paul E. Davison awarded Lee $59,542.50 in attorney fees and $3,824.13 in costs, for a total of $63,366.63 against the defendants. He directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and close the fee motion.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lee v. New Kang Suh Inc. · No. 7:17-cv-09502
Judge
Paul Davison
Date
Feb. 15, 2023

Background

Young Min Lee sued New Kang Suh, Inc. and Myung Sook Choi under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. In an earlier decision, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and dismissed Lee’s New York Labor Law claims. After a one-day bench trial on the remaining claims, the court awarded Lee $53,273.50 in damages. The parties had consented to Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison’s jurisdiction for all purposes.

Fee and Cost Request

Lee moved for attorney fees and costs based on her successful FLSA claims. She requested $89,720.00 in attorney fees and $3,837.23 in litigation expenses. The motion was unopposed. Lee submitted contemporaneous billing records from Hang & Associates, PLLC.

Attorney Rates

The court stated that a reasonable fee is generally calculated using a reasonable hourly rate multiplied by a reasonable number of hours. It approved rates of $350 per hour for Jian Hang; $300 for Yuezhu Liu, Ge Qu, and Jiajing Fan; and $150 for paralegals Maritza Yanes and Ge Yan. It reduced the requested rates for other attorneys based on their experience and the information provided about their employment-law backgrounds: $275 for Ken Maeng and Diana Seo, $250 for Zindzi Baugh Corbett, Shan Zhu, Yongjin Bae, and Ziyi Gao, and $200 for Phillip Kim, Zhangyuxi Wang, and Jie Shi.

Hours and Reductions

The billing records showed 307.50 compensable hours sought. The court found that the records were adequately documented but that the total hours were excessive for a relatively straightforward wage-and-hour case. It excluded 0.5 hours billed for a lunch break, reduced Bae’s travel time from the full billing rate to $125 per hour, and applied a 10 percent reduction for administrative and clerical work. The court also applied an additional 15 percent reduction for numerous 0.1-hour entries involving brief, mundane, or unspecified tasks. The resulting fee award was $59,542.50.

Costs

Lee requested $3,816.13 for filing, deposition, translation, and transcript costs, plus an $8.00 parking fee. The court found supporting documentation for those expenses. It denied reimbursement for a $13.10 electronic-toll expense because Lee did not provide underlying documentation. The court awarded $3,824.13 in costs.

Disposition

Judge Paul E. Davison awarded Lee $59,542.50 in attorney fees and $3,824.13 in costs, for a total of $63,366.63 against the defendants. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment accordingly and close the fee motion. Because this decision concerned an ancillary fee award rather than the underlying FLSA merits, it is classified as a procedural order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-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.