Ke v. J R Sushi 2 Inc

Background

Yi Mei Ke sued J R Sushi 2 Inc. and other defendants, alleging violations of federal and New York wage laws. Her claims included minimum-wage, overtime, spread-of-hours, wage-notice, and wage-statement claims. She named Zi Wang and Xin Wang as defendants, alleging that they were owners, managers, or otherwise employers responsible for the claimed wage violations.

Zi Wang and Xin Wang maintained that they were not owners or managers of the restaurant. The opinion states that Zi Wang was a full-time college student during Ke’s employment and that Xin Wang was a full-time schoolteacher. At her deposition, Ke testified that neither person hired her, supervised her, paid her, kept her employment records, or otherwise engaged in conduct that could make them liable under the federal or state wage laws. She also testified repeatedly that she did not know she had sued them and believed she was suing only their parents.

After Ke’s deposition, the two defendants asked Troy Law PLLC, Ke’s counsel, to dismiss the claims against them. Troy Law offered to remove them without barring a later lawsuit, but declined to dismiss the claims with prejudice. The defendants then moved for summary judgment and sought sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, which permits monetary penalties for lawyers who unreasonably and vexatiously prolong litigation. In an earlier ruling, the court granted summary judgment to Zi Wang and Xin Wang, denied Ke’s request to remove them without prejudice, and sanctioned Troy Law. The April 30 order determined the amount of those sanctions.

Legal standard

The court calculated reasonable attorney’s fees by multiplying reasonable hours by reasonable hourly rates, a method commonly called the lodestar calculation. The lawyers seeking fees had to document the hours and rates. The court could exclude excessive, duplicative, vague, or unnecessary work. It also required adequate documentation for claimed costs.

Hourly rates

For Zi Wang, Xue & Associates requested fees for Benjamin B. Xue at $400 per hour and Michael Romero at $300 per hour. The court found Xue’s $400 rate reasonable because of his experience in federal and New York wage-law matters. It reduced Romero’s rate to $250 per hour because his experience was not limited to labor and employment litigation.

For Xin Wang, the Law Office of Yi Lin requested fees for Yi Lin at $375 per hour and Olicar Yin at $100 per hour. The court reduced Lin’s rate to $350 per hour because the record did not establish how much of his practice involved wage-and-hour matters or how many years he had practiced in that area. It reduced Yin’s rate to $75 per hour because the record did not provide information about Yin’s background or experience.

Hours and costs

The court found reasonable the 58.2 hours billed by Xue & Associates for Zi Wang and the 30.7 hours billed by the Law Office of Yi Lin for Xin Wang. It rejected Troy Law’s arguments that the hours were excessive, duplicative, improperly block-billed, or unreasonable because the two defense firms coordinated their work. The court also found that the billing records were detailed enough for meaningful review.

Xue & Associates listed $67.75 in printing and mailing costs. The court denied those costs because the defendants submitted no invoices, receipts, or other outside documentation supporting them. The Law Office of Yi Lin did not receive a separate cost award; the opinion states that its listed printing and photocopying charges were not included in the amount sought.

Disposition

The court awarded Zi Wang $16,095.00 in attorney’s fees for work by Xue & Associates. It awarded Xin Wang $10,057.50 in attorney’s fees for work by the Law Office of Yi Lin. The aggregate award was $26,152.50, and payment was ordered within 30 days of the order. The court did not award the requested undocumented costs.