UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________
No 17-CV-3942 (RER) _____________________
PAMELLA CORTES, LETICIA GONZALES, AND ARIANA REYES,
Plaintiffs,
VERSUS
JUQUILA MEXICAN CUISINE CORP., TEOFILA MENDEZ, AND CRISTOBAL BONILLA,
Defendants. ___________________
Memorandum & Order
March 29, 2021 ___________________
RAMON E. REYES, JR., U.S.M.J.:
Plaintiffs Pamella Cortes (“Cortes”), statutory damages, plus post-judgment Leticia Gonzales (“Gonzales”), and Ariana interest. (Dkt. No. 87). Plaintiffs Reyes (“Reyes”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) subsequently filed a motion for attorney’s filed this suit against Juquila Mexican fees and costs, (Dkt. No. 89), and later a Cuisines Corp. (“Juquila”), Teofila Mendez motion to amend/supplement/correct the (“Mendez”), and Cristobal Bonilla affidavit in support of that motion, (“Bonilla”) claiming multiple violations of (Dkt. No. 92). For the reasons discussed the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), herein, Plaintiffs’ motion to amend is granted 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., the New York Labor and their motion for attorney’s fees is granted Law (“NYLL”) § 190 et seq; the New York in part. Executive Law; the New York City Human DISCUSSION Rights Law; and the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
29 U.S.C. § 206(d) et seq. (Dkt. No. 1). I. Attorney’s Fees The Court held an inquest as to Juquila’s The FLSA and NYLL allow prevailing liability on August 5–6, 2019. (Min. Entries employees to collect reasonable attorney’s dated 8/5/19 and 8/6/19). Following the fees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law inquest, the Court found that Juquila violated § 198(4). Plaintiffs bear the burden of the FLSA and NYLL overtime provisions proving the reasonableness and the necessity and awarded damages for unpaid wages, of the hours spent and the rates charged. Equal Pay Act damages, and liquidated and Fermin v. Las Delicias Peruanas Rest., Inc., 93 F. Supp. 3d 19, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). A Plaintiffs’ submissions reflect $116,060 district court has broad discretion to in attorney’s fees for a total of 288.7 hours of determine the reasonable amount of work completed by three attorneys and one attorney’s fees to be awarded. See, e.g., Arbor law clerk. (Pls.’ Mem. at 16–17). To support Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n their request, Plaintiffs submit the declaration v. Cnty. of Albany, 522 F.3d 183, 190 (2d Cir. of attorney Louis Pechman (“Pechman”). 2008); Torres v. 894 Dekalb Pizza Corp., No. (Dkt. No. 91 (“Pechman Decl.”)). Consistent 19-CV-5750 (AMD) (SMG), 2020 WL with the Court’s jurisprudence, Plaintiffs also 8768258, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 28, 2020), submit contemporaneous billing records R & R adopted by 2021 WL 848849 (Mar. 5, displaying the date, timekeeper, description 2021). of the activity, and total hours worked on that activity by the tenth of an hour. (Dkt. No. 91- In this Circuit, courts calculate the 1); see N.Y. Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. presumptively reasonable attorney’s fees as v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1148 (2d Cir. 1983). the product of a reasonable hourly rate and The billing records calculate total fees as the hours reasonably expended on the litigation. product of the hours that each attorney or law See Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 190. As part of clerk worked and the rates requested. (See this analysis, courts consider case-specific Dkt. No. 91-1). Attorney travel time was variables (“the Johnson factors”), including: appropriately reduced to half of their regular rates. (See id.); Hugee v. Kimso Apartments, (1) the time and labor required; (2) the LLC, 852 F. Supp. 2d 281, 302 (E.D.N.Y. novelty and difficulty of the 2012) (collecting cases). questions; (3) the level of skill required to perform the legal service A. Reasonable Hourly Rate properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to “[T]he reasonable hourly rate is the rate a acceptance of the case; (5) the paying client would be willing to pay bearing attorney’s customary hourly rate; (6) in mind that a reasonable, paying client whether the fee is fixed or contingent; wishes to spend the minimum necessary to (7) the time limitations imposed by litigate the case effectively.” Lilly, 934 F.3d the client or the circumstances; (8) the at 231 (citing Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 190). In amount involved in the case and the this Circuit, courts generally use the results obtained; (9) the experience, prevailing hourly rates in the district in which reputation and ability of the attorneys; they sit. Chen v. JP Standard Constr. Corp., (10) the ‘undesirability’ of the case; No. 14-CV-1086 (MKB) (RLM), 2016 WL (11) the nature and length of the 2909966, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016) professional relationship with the (citing Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 191), R & R client; and (12) awards in similar adopted by 2016 WL 2758272 (May 12, cases. 2016). It may be appropriate to rely on rates from another district “where the special Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 186 n.3 (citing expertise of non-local counsel was essential Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., to the case, [or] it was clearly shown that 488 F.2d 714, 717–19 (5th Cir. 1974)). These local counsel was unwilling to take the case, factors are “important tools” that help district or other special circumstances.” Farbotko v. courts identify the reasonable fees. Lilly v. Clinton Cnty., 433 F.3d 204, 211 (2d Cir. City of New York, 934 F.3d 222, 233 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Arbor Hill Concerned 2019). Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany, 369 F.3d 91, 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (per regularly pay and with market rates in New curiam)); see also Simmons v. New York City York City; and (3) the court-developed Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170, 172 (2d Cir. distinction between appropriate attorney’s 2009). fees in wage-and-hour cases and other civil rights litigation should be abandoned. (Pls.’ “Courts in the Eastern District have Mem. at 4–16). Plaintiffs also argue that the recently awarded hourly rates ranging from requested fees are appropriate under the $300 to $450 for partners, $200 to $325 for remaining Johnson factors, namely time and senior associates, $100 to $200 for junior labor required to litigate the matter, including associates, and $70 to $100 for legal support due to repeated delays by Defendants, and the staff in FLSA cases.” Martinez v. New 168 degree of success obtained. (Pls.’ Mem. at Supermarket LLC, 19-CV-4526 (CBA) 13–14). After carefully considering each of (SMG), 2020 WL 5260579, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. these arguments, and for the reasons that Aug. 19, 2020) (collecting cases), R & R follow, I find it appropriate to reduce the adopted by 2020 WL 5259056 (Sept. 3, requested hourly rates to $500 for Pechman, 2020). Plaintiffs request $100 per hour for $325 for lead counsel Rodriguez, and $300 work completed by law clerk Maribel Lopez for Marquez. (“Lopez”). She provided administrative and paralegal support for this matter. (Pechman i. Qualifications of PLG Attorneys Decl. ¶ 54; Pls.’ Mem. at 7). Accordingly, the requested rate for Lopez’s contributions is PLG represents employees and reasonable. See LG Cap. Funding, LLC v. management in a range of employment law 5Barz Int’l, Inc., No. 16-CV-2752 (KAM) issues, including wage and hour claims. (JO), 2019 WL 3082478, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. (Pechman Decl. ¶¶ 4, 34, 47). The firm has July 15, 2019) (collecting cases) (“In this been recognized as “A-V rated by District, law clerks are typically awarded fees Martindale-Hubbell” and has been selected at the same hourly rate as legal by Best Lawyers as a 2017 “Tier 1” New paraprofessionals, or paralegals.”). York City law firm in the area of “Employment Law – Individuals” as well as Plaintiffs request $600 per hour for “Labor Law – Management.” (Id. ¶ 50). Pechman and $400 per hour for attorneys Laura Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) and Lillian The Court acknowledges Pechman’s M. Marquez (“Marquez”). (Pls.’ Mem. at 7). significant and specialized experience, as These rates are above those typically well as his reputation in this District. awarded in wage and hour cases in this Pechman graduated from Fordham Law District. See, e.g., Martinez, 2020 WL School in 1983. (Pechman Decl. ¶ 46). He has 5260579, at *8. Plaintiffs assert three primary focused his practice on labor and arguments in support of these rates: (1) the employment law throughout his career.1 (Id.). rates are commensurate with counsel’s In recent years, as a partner at PLG, Pechman significant experience; (2) the rates are has handled over 300 cases involving FLSA consistent with what employers who retain and NYLL claims. (Id. ¶ 48). He provides a Pechman Law Group PLLC (“PLG”) detailed description of his accomplishments and recognition by his peers. (Id. ¶¶ 48–50).
1 Before founding PLG in January 2015, Pechman Giardino / Lambos & Junge. He was a partner at worked as an attorney for Skadden, Arps, Slate, BerkeWeiss & Pechman LLP from 1996 through Meagher & Flom LLP; Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & 2014. (Pechman Decl. ¶ 46). Engelhard, P.C.; the Daily News; and Lambos & His qualifications merit an award slightly Real Rate Report by Wolters Kluwer (“Real above the rates currently awarded in this Rate Report”). District. Pechman asserts that “[s]ince 2013, my Rodriguez was the primary associate hourly rate has been $600” and that “[o]ver attorney on this matter. (Pls.’ Mem. at 7; 300 of my clients have paid” that rate. Pechman Decl. ¶¶ 38, 52). She graduated (Pechman Decl. ¶ 51). Similarly, each of from Fordham University School of Law in Rodriguez’s and Marquez’s hourly rates for May 2013. (Id.). She has been involved in all clients was $400. (Id. ¶¶ 52–53). Plaintiffs over one hundred wage-and-hour cases in argue that “[t]here is no basis to rely on a which she has represented both employees fictional market rate when counsel has a well- and management. (Id.). She is a native established hourly rate, paid by hundreds of Spanish speaker, the primary language of individuals, executives, and companies.” Plaintiffs. (Id.). Rodriguez was selected for (Pls.’ Mem. at 10). “the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch and Super Lawyers: New York Metro Rising Stars lists “Although the actual rate an attorney for 2020.” (Id.). She is also an Adjunct charges paying clients is persuasive evidence Professor at Fordham University School of of reasonableness, compensable attorneys’ Law where she jointly teaches with Pechman fees must ultimately conform to market a course called “Wage Theft: Employee rates” for similarly experienced counsel in Rights and Employer Responsibilities.” (Id.). similar matters. Tatum v. City of New York, Her qualifications merit an award at the No. 06 Civ. 4290 (PGG) (GWG), 2010 WL higher end of the range in this District. 334975, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2010). Moreover, when agreeing to pay a particular Marquez graduated from the George hourly rate, the considerations of Washington University Law School in May management defending against FLSA and 2011. (Pechman Decl. ¶ 53). She joined PLG NYLL claims differ from those of employees as an associate attorney from September bringing the claims. Cf. K.F. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t 2016 through August 2019 after five years of of Educ., No. 10 Civ. 5465 (PKC), 2011 WL federal clerkship experience. (Id.). Marquez 3586142, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2011), is fluent in Spanish. (Id.). Plaintiffs do not adhered to as amended, 2011 WL 4684361 describe any other specialized experience or (Oct. 5, 2011) (“The significance of a client recognition. agreed-upon rate . . . (as the product of an arms-length negotiation) takes on less ii. Consistent with Market Rates in significance when the client knows it will New York City, PLG Clients never pay that amount. Nevertheless, [the Actually Pay the Requested Rates attorney’s] willingness to take the case on a contingency fee basis is also a factor The Second Circuit has held that reliance weighing in his firm’s favor.”); Cleanup N. on hourly rates set in prior case law “may be Brooklyn v. Brooklyn Transfer LLC, 373 F. proper in the absence of any credible Supp. 3d 398, 403 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (“[I]n evidence by the fee applicant of a higher cases involving pro bono representation, prevailing market rate.” Farbotko, 433 F.3d courts look to the amounts usually charged by at 210. Plaintiffs submit additional evidence attorneys handling similar matters, as for the Court’s consideration, including opposed to rates that firms are ‘accustomed federal and state orders in which courts to handling for large, fee-paying clients.’” awarded higher hourly rates and the 2018 (quoting Cho v. Koam Med. Servs. P.C., 524 Plaintiffs cite to cases from only the F.Supp.2d 202, 207 (E.D.N.Y. 2007))). Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) in which courts awarded PLG’s requested rates. While recognizing his significant (Pls.’ Mem. at 4–5 (first citing Espinosa v. experience and accolades “courts in this City Perez, No. 18 Civ. 8855, 2020 U.S. Dist. have repeatedly reduced Pechman’s hourly LEXIS 14075, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, rate to $500 or even lower.” Hernandez v. 2020), R & R adopted by 2020 U.S. Dist. Boucherie LLC, No. 18 Civ. 7887 (VEC), LEXIS 40829 (Mar. 9, 2020); and then citing 2019 WL 3765750, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, Augusto Corrales v. AJMM Trucking Corp., 2019) (collecting cases) (reducing No. 19 Civ. 4532 (LJL), 2020 WL 1911189, Pechman’s hourly rate to “a very generous” at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 2020)). A purely $500); see also, e.g., Sajvin v. Singh Farm geographic analysis of reasonable hourly Corp., No. 17-CV-04032 (AMD) (RER), rates “ignores the practical reality of 2018 WL 4214335, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, practicing law in New York [City].” Gutman 2018) (awarding $500 per hour), R & R v. Klein, No. 03-CV-1570 (BMC) (RML), adopted by WL 4211300 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2009 WL 3296072, at *2 n. 1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 2018); Eren v. Gulluoglu, LLC, No. 15-CV- 13, 2009); see also Siracuse v. Program for 4083 (DLI) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2018) the Dev. of Human Potential, No. 07-CV- (same). Similarly, associates from PLG are 2205 (CLP), 2012 WL 1624291, at *27 n.28 consistently awarded within the typical range (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2012). However, it for this District and not more. See e.g., Sajvin, remains that “rates in the [SDNY] are higher 2018 WL 4214335, at *9 (awarding an hourly than the rates in this District.” Torcivia v. rate of $250 for an associate with Suffolk Cnty., 437 F. Supp. 3d 239, 252 approximately five years of experience and (E.D.N.Y. 2020) (citing Simmons, 575 F.3d $175 per hour for a junior associate); Salazar at 177). Accordingly, fees that clients have v. 203 Lena Inc., No. 16 Civ. 7743 (VB) been willing to pay PLG for its representation (JLC), 2020 WL 5627118, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. in the SDNY do not counsel in favor of Sept. 18, 2020) (reducing Rodriguez’s hourly awarding higher rates than courts in this rate to $250), R & R adopted by 2020 WL District have consistently awarded. 6257158 (Oct. 23, 2020); Hernandez, 2019 WL 3765750, at *5 (reducing Marquez’s Plaintiffs also argue that, according to the hourly rate to “a generous $300.”); Cazarez Real Rate Report, the mean “real rate” v. Atl. Farm & Food Inc., No. 15-CV-2666 charged by labor and employment attorneys (CBA) (RML), 2017 WL 3701687, at *7 in New York City is consistent with (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2017) (awarding Plaintiffs’ request. (Pls.’ Mem. at 6). Marquez $250 per hour), R & R adopted by According to that report, the mean real rate in 2017 WL 3701479 (Aug. 25, 2017).2 I agree 2018 for partners and associates working in with the reasoning of these courts. labor and employment law in New York City
2 Plaintiffs attempt to distinguish some of the case law 2018))). In Manley, however, the Court noted that reducing their requested rates. They argue that courts while “the firm’s clients regularly accept and pay the failed to consider that paying clients regularly paid requested hourly rates . . . counsel does not cite any PLG for its legal services and expertise at the cases awarding [PLG or Pechman] the hourly rates requested rates. (Pls.’ Mem. at 4 (first citing Manley v. requested here.” 2017 WL 1155916, at *11 (emphasis Midan Rest. Inc., No. 14 Civ. 1693 (HBP), 2017 WL added). The court in Velandia reduced the requested 1155916, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2017); and then hourly rates as part of its “cross check” of the citing Velandia v. Serendipity 3, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 1799 settlement. 2018 WL 3418776, at *4. (AJN), 2018 WL 3418776, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, was $682 per hour and $473 per hour, iii. Distinction between Attorney’s respectively. (Id.). “[A]lthough not Fees in Wage-and-Hour Cases dispositive, the Court may rely on survey and Other Civil Rights Litigation evidence as a cross-check on any fee award to ensure that it is reasonable.” Espinosa, Plaintiffs argue that the court-developed 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14075, at *10–11 distinction between wage-and-hour matters (awarding Pechman an hourly rate of $600 and discrimination/civil rights cases “has no and Marquez an hourly rate of $375 after basis in law and should not continue to be cross checking those rates against the 2018 drawn.” (Pls.’ Mem. at 12). Regarding Real Rate Report); see also Augusto Corrales “discrimination/civil rights cases,” Plaintiffs v. AJMM Trucking Corp., No. 19 Civ. 4532 compare rates awarded for civil rights (LJL), 2020 WL 1911189, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. litigation in the SDNY to rates awarded for Apr. 20, 2020) (awarding Pechman’s $600 FLSA litigation in the SDNY and this hourly rate and $225 per hour for junior District. But the regular rates within this associates). However, the helpfulness of the District are not significantly different. Real Rate Report is less than certain. Compare Torcivia, 437 F. Supp. 3d at 252 (collecting cases) (civil rights), with The report’s methodology is opaque; Martinez, 2020 WL 5260579, at *8 (FLSA). it claims to be based on “the actual In this District, hourly rates for civil rights hours and fees law firm personnel litigation currently range from $300–$450 billed” from 2007–2011 but does not per hour for partners and $100–$325 per hour explain whether its sample is for associates. Torcivia, 437 F. Supp. 3d at representative of the New York 252 (collecting cases). Moreover, “[t]he market as a whole—i.e., whether its highest rates . . . are reserved for expert trial sample is skewed toward litigation attorneys with extensive experience before partners working for large corporate the federal bar, who specialize in the practice law firms—or how it normalizes the of civil rights law and are recognized by their data. . . . Finally, in capturing data peers as leaders and experts in their fields.” from 2007–2011, the report reflects Hugee, 852 F. Supp. 2d at 299 (citing Luca v. historic rates more than current rates. Cnty. of Nassau, 698 F. Supp. 2d 296, 301 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)). Hourly rates of $500 for Hicks v. Vane Line Bunkering, Inc., No. 11 Pechman, $325 for Rodriguez, and $300 for Civ. 8158 (KBF), 2013 WL 1747806, at *9 Marquez are comparable to fees granted in (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2013) (referring to the this District to civil right attorneys with 2012 Real Rate Report), aff’d sub nom. Hicks similar experience. v. Tug PATRIOT, 783 F.3d 939 (2d Cir. 2015). The Real Rate Report is insufficient to As to fees awarded in “civil rights and meet Plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate that employment law cases,” Plaintiffs first cite to the requested rates conform to market rates a case in which the Court reviewed the for similar services—representation of settlement agreement for fairness. Ebbert v. employees in wage-and-hour litigation—in Nassau Cnty., No. 05-CV-5445 (AKT), 2011 this District. WL 6826121, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2011) (“Although the Defendants have proffered no objection to the proposed hourly rates, the Court believes they are at the very high end of what courts in the Eastern District of New York typically awarded in complex cases.”). In that context, the Court is still When a plaintiff’s billing record is required to assess the reasonableness of the excessive, it is within the court’s discretion to fees negotiated under settlement agreements; reduce the fees requested. See Kliger v. however, the Court’s “fiduciary role in Liberty Saverite Supermarket Inc., No. 17- overseeing the award is greatly reduced.” Id. CV-02520 (FB) (ST), 2018 WL 4782342, at at *14. Moreover, an hourly rate of $500 for *10 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018), R & R Pechman, $325 for Rodriguez, and $300 for adopted by 2018 WL 4783964 (Oct. 3, 2018). Marquez fall squarely within the range that The Court may also reduce the requested the courts to which Plaintiffs cite have hours to adjust for attorney time billed for identified. See id. at *16 (acknowledging that clerical or administrative tasks. Torcivia, 437 “courts have approved, in class actions where F. Supp. 3d at 253 (citing Lilly, 934 F.3d at the defendants have agreed to pay the specific 234); see also Salazar, 2020 WL 5627118, at attorneys’ fees, a lodestar based on billable *13 (recommending thirty percent reduction rates of between $405 and $790 for partners of Pechman, Marquez, and Rodriguez’s and $270 to $500 for associates.”); Vilkhu v. hours). Further, “[w]here an attorney City of New York, No. 06-CV-2095 repeatedly bills 0.10 hours for ‘discrete (CPS)(JO), 2009 WL 1851019, at *5 tasks,’ but, when taken together, it appears (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009) (awarding hourly likely those tasks ‘occupied less than the sum ranges ranging from $400 to $525 for total of the 0.10 hour increments, such a partners), rev’d on other grounds, 372 Fed. practice can improperly inflate the number of App’x. 222 (2d Cir. 2010).3 hours billed beyond what is appropriate.’” Salazar, 2020 WL 5627118, at *13 (quoting B. Reasonable Hours Expended Hernandez, 2019 WL 3765750, at *6). The Court must next examine the Plaintiffs’ counsel already reduced the contemporaneous time records and assess the hours expended to omit hours they reasonableness of the hours expended based understood to be excessive, redundant, or on its experience, knowledge of the case, and otherwise unnecessary. (Pls.’ Mem. at 15; the evidence and arguments presented. See Pechman Decl. ¶¶ 6, 37). For example, they Hugee, 852 F. Supp. 2d at 302–03. “The goal excluded some discussions regarding is ‘to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing litigation strategies and the status of the case. perfection.’” Gleason v. Scoppetta, No. 12- (Pechman Decl. ¶ 42). Considering the three CV-4123 (RJD) (RLM), 2015 U.S. Dist. years that PLG spent litigating this matter, LEXIS 178305, at *22 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, including failed settlement negotiations, 2015) (quoting Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, depositions, and a two-day inquest, the hours 837 (2011)), R & R adopted in relevant part expended are reasonable. Espinosa, 2020 by 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72753 (June 3, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14075 (finding 195.2 hours 2016). reasonably expended by PLG in a case litigated for two years, including a one-day bench trial). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are
3 Plaintiffs’ reliance on Kovach v. City Univ. of N.Y., aff’d, 519 Fed. App’x. 1 (2d Cir. 2013); and Rozell v. No. 13 Civ. 7198 (LGS), 2015 WL 3540798, at *2–3 Ross-Holst, 576 F. Supp. 2d 527, 544–46 (S.D.N.Y. (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2015); KGK Jewelry LLC v. 2008) is inapposite. (See Pls.’ Mem. at 13). As ESDNetwork, No. 11 Civ. 9236 (LTS), 2015 WL discussed supra, rates in the SDNY are generally 2129703, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2015); Torres v. higher than those awarded in this District. Torcivia, Gristede’s Operating Corp., No. 4 Civ. 3316 (PAC), 437 F. Supp. 3d at 252. 2012 WL 3878814, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2012), awarded attorney’s fees in the total amount of translation services, and inquest materials.5 $93,330.4 (Dkt No. 92). In support of this request, Plaintiffs submitted a motion to II. Costs amend/correct/supplement Pechman’s affidavit and attached six exhibits containing The FLSA and NYLL allow prevailing receipts and invoices.6 (Dkt. No. 92). employees to collect reasonable litigation Plaintiffs’ receipts and invoices support the costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law costs requested. (Dkt. Nos. 92-1 through 92- § 198(4). This includes “[t]he costs of 6). Accordingly, Plaintiffs are awarded depositions . . . where they appear to have reasonable costs in the amount of $4,643.86. been reasonably necessary to the litigation at the time they were taken.” Am. Tech. CONCLUSION Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., No. 14-CV-6544 (KAM) (GRB), 2020 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ WL 5665065, at *32 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, motion for attorney’s fees is granted to the 2020); see also Local Civ. R. 54.1(c). extent that they are awarded attorney’s fees Plaintiffs must submit receipts, invoices, or in the amount of $93,330, and costs in the other evidence to support the costs requested. amount of $4,643.86. E.g., Gesualdi v. D. Gangi Contracting Corp., No. 18-CV-3773 (FB) (SJB), 2019 SO ORDERED WL 1130729, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2019), R & R adopted by 2019 WL 1128356 /s/ Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. (Mar. 12, 2019); J & J Sports Prods., Inc. v. RAMON E. REYES, JR. Perez, No. 06-CV-480 (JG) (SMG), 2008 United States Magistrate Judge U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118445, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2008), R & R adopted by 2008 U.S. Dated: March 29, 2021 Dist. LEXIS 25321 (Mar. 31, 2008). Brooklyn, NY Plaintiffs seek to recover $4,643.86 in filing fees, depositions, service of process,
4 Pechman: $500 X 8.6 = $4,300; Rodriguez: $325 X 230.4 = $74,880; Marquez: $300 X 45.9 = $13,770; 6 The motion to amend/correct/supplement and Lopez: $100 X 3.8 = $380. attached exhibits were served on Juquila, Mendez, and Bonilla via U.S. Postal Service on March 4, 2021. 5 The Court acknowledges that Plaintiffs do not (Dkt. No. 94). Juquila has not objected to the motion, request reimbursement for all costs that its counsel and it is within the Court’s discretion to grant it. incurred litigating this matter, including costs for Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to photocopying, printing, and postage. (Pechman Decl. amend/correct/supplement is granted. ¶ 64).