Penzo v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-07478
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Penzo v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Vyskocil accepted supplemental fee-motion papers and set deadlines for opposition and reply.
Emily Penzo and Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; the order governs further briefing on Penzo’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.
What happened
In Penzo v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Emily Penzo asked for attorney’s fees and costs under the New York City Human Rights Law and a prior judgment. Her initial motion did not include a legal memorandum, affidavits, or exhibits.
Consolidated Edison argued that the motion was procedurally defective under the court’s local rules. Penzo later filed supporting materials and explained why they were not submitted earlier. The court found that the motion itself met the federal rule’s basic requirements, but that the local rules generally required supporting materials.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil accepted Penzo’s supplemental filing and treated Consolidated Edison’s letter as a request to respond to the fee motion. The court ordered Consolidated Edison to file any opposition by February 16, 2024, and Penzo to file any reply by February 23, 2024. The order did not decide whether Penzo would receive fees or costs.
The detailed version
- Penzo v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-07478
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 5, 2024
Background
On January 1, 2024, Emily Penzo filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs under the New York City Human Rights Law and the court’s December 18, 2023 judgment. The initial motion did not include a memorandum of law, supporting affidavits, or exhibits. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. opposed the motion on the ground that it did not comply with Local Civil Rule 7.1(a). Penzo later filed a memorandum, affidavits, exhibits, and a letter explaining the initial omission.
Court’s analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) governs requests for attorney’s fees and related expenses. The rule requires a fee request to be made by motion and generally requires it to identify the judgment and legal basis for the request and state the amount sought or provide a fair estimate. The court concluded that Penzo’s motion facially complied with those federal requirements.
The court also explained that Local Civil Rule 7.1(a) generally requires motions to include a memorandum of law and supporting affidavits and exhibits necessary to decide the motion. The court noted that the local rules apply in civil actions governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when they do not conflict with federal law or the Constitution.
Order
The court exercised its discretion to accept Penzo’s supplemental filing, citing apparent confusion about how the local and federal rules interact and the need for efficiency. It construed Consolidated Edison’s letter as a request for an opportunity to make opposing submissions under Rule 54(d)(2)(C). The court ordered Consolidated Edison to file any opposition by February 16, 2024, and Penzo to file any reply by February 23, 2024.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil did not grant or deny the requested attorney’s fees and costs in this order. The order addressed the fee motion’s supporting materials and set a briefing schedule.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.