Hong v. Mommy's Jamaican Market Corp.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-09612
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hong v. Mommy’s Jamaican Market Corp., Judge Liman denied Hong’s request to increase an attorneys’ fee award because it was untimely and lacked grounds for reconsideration.
Sun Yeul Hong’s request for a higher attorneys’ fee award was denied; the opinion does not state that the earlier award itself was changed.
What happened
In Hong v. Mommy’s Jamaican Market Corp., Sun Yeul Hong asked the court to increase an earlier attorneys’ fee award from $177,318.25 to $265,677.40. The earlier award was made in a March 21, 2024 order.
Hong called his filing a request to alter the judgment, but the court treated it as a request to reconsider the earlier order because final judgment had not yet been entered. The court found that the request was late under either possible deadline.
The court also ruled that Hong had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error requiring reconsideration. Judge Liman denied the motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Hong v. Mommy's Jamaican Market Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-09612
- Lewis Liman
- May 16, 2024
Background
The court had previously awarded attorneys’ fees of $177,318.25 in a March 21, 2024 Memorandum and Order. Plaintiff Sun Yeul Hong moved to increase that award to $265,677.40. He labeled the motion as one to alter the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).
Because final judgment had not yet been entered, the court construed the filing as a motion for reconsideration. The court also considered whether the filing could instead be treated as a motion to modify the earlier order.
Reasons for the Decision
The court denied the motion for two independently sufficient reasons. First, it was untimely under either characterization. If treated as a motion for reconsideration, it was filed nearly a month after the March 21 order, beyond the 14-day period in Local Rule 6.3. If treated as a motion for modification, the 28-day period ended on April 18, while Hong filed the motion on April 19.
Second, the motion failed on its merits. Reconsideration requires the moving party to identify an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. The court concluded that Hong had not identified overlooked evidence or controlling law. The evidence he cited had been available before his original fee motion, and nearly all of it had already been submitted and considered. The court stated that the pay matrices would not have changed its conclusion.
Disposition
The court denied Hong’s motion to increase the attorneys’ fee award. It directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 221.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.