Czymmek v. Fenstermaker
- Lewis Liman
- 1:23-cv-08124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Czymmek v. Fenstermaker, Judge Liman granted Czymmek $13,685 in attorneys’ fees plus statutory post-judgment interest.
Martha Czymmek received a $13,685 attorneys’ fee award plus statutory post-judgment interest. Scott Fenstermaker is subject to the judgment for that amount, and the case was closed after the fee ruling.
What happened
Czymmek v. Fenstermaker involved Czymmek’s effort to enforce a Connecticut court judgment against Fenstermaker in New York. Fenstermaker removed the enforcement proceeding to federal court, and Czymmek successfully obtained an order sending it back to New York state court.
Czymmek then requested $17,935 in attorneys’ fees under the federal remand statute. The court found that removal was plainly improper, approved counsel’s $425 hourly rate, but reduced the claimed hours by 25% as excessive. Fenstermaker did not oppose the fee request.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the motion for attorneys’ fees and ordered an award of $13,685, with post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment and close the case.
The detailed version
- Czymmek v. Fenstermaker · No. 1:23-cv-08124
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 26, 2024
Background
The dispute arose from litigation between Martha Czymmek and Scott Fenstermaker concerning their deceased father’s will. Czymmek was the judgment creditor, and Fenstermaker was the judgment debtor, under a Connecticut Superior Court judgment for $93,775.77 in attorneys’ fees awarded in litigation Fenstermaker had initiated concerning the father’s estate.
Czymmek attempted to domesticate the Connecticut judgment in New York under Article 54 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules. After a later filing was assigned an index number, Fenstermaker removed the domestication proceeding to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Czymmek moved to dismiss and/or remand the case and requested attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In a January 23, 2024 Opinion and Order, the court granted Czymmek’s motion to remand the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. The court also held that Czymmek was entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs, retained jurisdiction to determine the amount, and directed her to submit a specific fee request.
Fee request
Czymmek requested $17,935 in attorneys’ fees and post-judgment interest. Her counsel, Carole E. Bernstein, reported 40 hours of work from September through December 2023 and an additional 2.2 hours after January 1, 2024. She requested an hourly rate of $425. Fenstermaker did not oppose the motion.
Under Section 1447(c), a court remanding a case may require payment of costs and actual expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the removal. The court accepted the $425 hourly rate as consistent with or lower than rates approved in similar cases in the Second Circuit. It found, however, that the claimed time was excessive because removal was plainly improper and the remand issues were not unusually complex.
The court exercised its discretion to reduce the claimed hours by 25 percent rather than review every billing entry individually. That reduction produced a fee award of $13,685.
Post-judgment interest and disposition
The court held that Czymmek was entitled to post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. It granted Czymmek’s motion for attorneys’ fees, directed the Clerk of Court to prepare a judgment against Fenstermaker for $13,685 plus statutory post-judgment interest, and directed the Clerk to close the motion and the case.
The opinion states that Czymmek filed the fee motion on January 25, 2025, even though the opinion is dated March 26, 2024; the opinion does not explain this apparent date inconsistency.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.