Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02397
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Ramirez v. Marriott International, Judge Halpern granted in part counsel’s fee request, awarding $137,661 in fees and $15,652.47 in costs.
Plaintiffs’ counsel received $137,661 in attorneys’ fees and $15,652.47 in costs from the approved $445,000 settlement; the settlement class consisted of approximately 50 in-room dining workers, according to the opinion.
What happened
In Ramirez v. Marriott International, Humberto Ramirez and Michael Boateng alleged that Marriott International and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company kept service and delivery fees from in-room dining workers, violating federal and New York wage laws. The parties settled for $445,000, and the court approved the settlement except for the amount of lawyers’ fees and costs.
The lawyers requested $295,000 in fees and costs, based on 897.45 hours billed by 41 timekeepers. The court found the request unreasonable because the hourly rates were too high and the work involved excessive staffing, duplicated tasks, vague and combined time entries, and too many total hours. It reduced the fee calculation by adjusting the rates and cutting the hours by 40%.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted in part the request for fees and costs. He awarded $137,661 in attorneys’ fees and $15,652.47 in costs, for a total of $153,313.47, and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. Marriott International, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-02397
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 10, 2023
Background
Humberto Ramirez brought the case individually and on behalf of similarly situated workers against Marriott International, Inc. and The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC. Michael Boateng later joined as an opt-in plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants retained proceeds from service and delivery fees charged to in-room dining customers, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law § 196-d.
The parties reached a settlement for $445,000. The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, except as to attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel then requested $295,000 in fees and costs. Counsel asserted that the lodestar—the number of reasonable hours multiplied by reasonable hourly rates—was $650,928, based on approximately 897.45 hours billed by 41 timekeepers.
Analysis
The court concluded that the requested $295,000 was unreasonable for this straightforward wage-and-hour case. It found that counsel used excessive hourly rates, staffed the matter with too many timekeepers, billed duplicative work, used vague and block-billed entries, and recorded an excessive number of hours overall.
The court adjusted the hourly rates to $500 for partners, $300 for counsel and associates, and $100 for non-attorney staff. These adjustments produced an adjusted lodestar of $243,765 before further reductions. The court then applied a 40% across-the-board reduction to the hours because of the billing problems and excessive time. That reduction resulted in a reasonable attorneys’ fee of $137,661.
The court separately reviewed the requested litigation costs and found them reasonable. Plaintiffs’ counsel sought $15,652.47 in costs, including substantial amounts for deposition transcripts.
Disposition
The court granted in part Plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs. It awarded $137,661 in attorneys’ fees and $15,652.47 in costs, for a total recovery of $153,313.47. The clerk was directed to close the case.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.