Barzilay v. City Of New York
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:20-cv-04452
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Barzilay v. City of New York, Judge Aaron granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ fee motion, awarding $651,533.78.
The plaintiffs, including Local 2507, Oren Barzilay, Elizabeth Bonilla, Alexander Nunez, Megan Pfieffer, and John Rugen, received $632,450.00 in attorneys’ fees and $19,083.78 in costs from the defendants. The order reduced the amounts plaintiffs initially requested.
What happened
Barzilay v. City of New York involved emergency medical technicians, paramedics, fire inspectors, and their union, who claimed that New York City and other defendants retaliated against protected speech and violated due-process rights. The parties settled the remaining claims after partial summary-judgment rulings, and the case was dismissed while the court kept authority to decide fees and costs.
Plaintiffs asked for $736,671.25 in attorneys’ fees and $19,083.78 in costs. Defendants did not dispute that plaintiffs could recover reasonable fees and costs, but argued that the amounts were excessive, including because of staffing, duplicated work, vague time entries, and certain costs.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted in part and denied in part the motion. He awarded $632,450.00 in attorneys’ fees and $19,083.78 in costs, for a total award of $651,533.78, after reallocating partner hours and reducing compensable hours by five percent.
The detailed version
- Barzilay v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-04452
- Stewart Aaron
- Apr. 12, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs were Uniformed Emergency Medical Technicians, Paramedics, and Fire Inspectors, Local 2507, DC 37, AFSCME; Oren Barzilay, as the union’s president; Elizabeth Bonilla; Alexander Nunez; Megan Pfieffer; and John Rugen. They sued the City of New York, Daniel Nigro as Commissioner of the Fire Department of the City of New York, and Carlos Velez under federal and state law.
The claims included First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourteenth Amendment due-process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with claims under the New York Constitution. The individual plaintiffs alleged that defendants restricted their employment or took other adverse employment actions because they communicated with news media about the COVID-19 pandemic and the experiences of emergency medical technicians and paramedics. The union alleged that adverse actions against its members chilled speech and interfered with the union’s ability to communicate with the public.
After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Judge Lewis J. Liman denied plaintiffs’ partial summary-judgment motion and granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion. Judge Liman granted defendants’ motion on the due-process claims but found that plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial on their federal First Amendment retaliation claims against all defendants and on a related New York free-speech claim against the City.
The parties later reached a settlement after two settlement conferences. Under the agreement, Bonilla, Nunez, Pfieffer, and Rugen each received $29,999.00 in compensatory damages. Defendants also agreed to follow a specified policy, not rely on or seek to reinstate a prior version of that policy, and expunge certain information about the four individuals from Fire Department files. The action was dismissed on February 9, 2023, with the court retaining jurisdiction to decide plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees and costs.
Attorneys’ Fees
The court applied the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, which allows a court to award a prevailing civil-rights plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of the costs. The court concluded that plaintiffs were prevailing parties because they obtained a successful settlement and substantial relief.
Plaintiffs requested compensation at hourly rates of $600 for Walter Meginniss, $450 for Amelia Tuminaro, $300 for Hyungwoo David Kim, and $125 for law students and paralegals. Judge Aaron found those rates reasonable based on the attorneys’ experience and other relevant factors.
Plaintiffs sought payment for 1,589 hours of work. The court found that the case had been staffed too heavily by the more senior partner, Meginniss, who billed 793.6 hours, compared with 490.8 hours billed by Tuminaro. The court concluded that Tuminaro could have run the case substantially on her own at her lower hourly rate. It therefore reallocated the 1,284.4 total partner hours so that Meginniss received credit for 321.1 hours, or 25 percent, and Tuminaro received credit for 963.3 hours, or 75 percent.
The court also considered duplicated work, including both attorneys’ billing for preparation and attendance at depositions, and vague time entries. Rather than review every entry individually, the court applied a five-percent reduction to the hours for which plaintiffs sought compensation.
The resulting award was $183,000 for Meginniss, based on 305 hours at $600 per hour; $411,750 for Tuminaro, based on 915 hours at $450 per hour; $2,700 for Kim, based on 9 hours at $300 per hour; and $35,000 for all other personnel, based on 280 hours at $125 per hour. The attorneys’ fee award totaled $632,450.00. The court also considered that plaintiffs had not succeeded on every claim but found that their claims shared factual and legal bases and that the overall relief was substantial.
Costs and Disposition
Plaintiffs initially requested $33,929.67 in costs but reduced the request to $19,083.78 after defendants objected to various items. The remaining disputed costs included printing, overnight mailing, electronic legal research, and database research. The court found the reduced costs reasonable and compensable.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s order granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion. It awarded $632,450.00 in attorneys’ fees and $19,083.78 in costs, for a total award of $651,533.78.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.