Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07654
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp., Judge Caproni overruled Chen’s objection, adopted the recommendation, granted his fee motion in part, and dismissed remaining claims.
Chang Yan Chen received $49,791.76 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs. The remaining claims against the “Doe” defendants and Stew M. Low were dismissed, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp., the court reviewed a recommendation about Chen’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs after an earlier judgment. The recommendation awarded $49,791.76 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs.
Chen objected only to the costs amount and submitted invoices showing $3,314.40 in costs. The defendants did not object or respond. The court found that Chen had not shown an error in the original costs award or a reasonable excuse for submitting the invoices late.
Judge Caproni overruled Chen’s objection, adopted the recommendation in full, and granted his motion in part. The court awarded $49,791.76 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs, dismissed Chen’s remaining claims against the “Doe” defendants and Stew M. Low, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-07654
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 23, 2024
Background
On April 10, 2023, the court entered judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 against Lili’s 200 West 57th Corp. doing business as Lili’s 57 Asian Cuisine, 792 Restaurant Food Corp. doing business as Lilli and Loo, and Siew Moy Low. The judgment stated that Chang Yan Chen was a prevailing party entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
Chen then moved for attorneys’ fees and costs. The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Moses, who recommended awarding $49,791.76 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs. The recommendation limited costs to $400 because Chen had submitted only the filing-fee amount shown on the docket and had not provided invoices, receipts, or other evidence supporting the larger amount requested.
Objection and review
Chen filed an objection that addressed only the costs calculation. He apologized for not submitting invoices with his original motion and attached invoices showing $3,314.40 in costs. The objection did not explain why the invoices had not been submitted earlier. The defendants did not object or respond.
For portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation that no party challenges, the district court may adopt the recommendation unless the record shows a clear error. For a properly challenged portion, the district court reviews the matter independently. Judge Caproni found no clear error in the unchallenged attorneys’ fee recommendation.
Ruling
The court overruled Chen’s objection. It held that the later-submitted invoices did not show that Magistrate Judge Moses had erred based on the evidence available when the original motion was decided, and Chen had not provided a reasonable excuse for the late submission. The court therefore concluded that the late invoices did not justify increasing the costs award.
The court adopted the report and recommendation in full. It stated that Chen’s motion was GRANTED IN PART and awarded $49,791.76 in attorneys’ fees and $400 in costs. It also ordered that Chen’s remaining claims against the “Doe” defendants and Stew M. Low be DISMISSED. The clerk was directed to terminate the fee motion and close the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.