Marrotta v. Suffolk County
This text of 726 F. Supp. 2d 1 (Marrotta v. Suffolk County) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, District Judge.
This motion for attorneys’ fees follows a settlement agreement between Suffolk County (“Suffolk”) and certain unionized correction officers employed by Suffolk (the “Officers”).
1. INTRODUCTION
In January of 2005, complaints were filed independently by line officers assigned to the Suffolk County House of Correction, in Marotta v. Suffolk County, No. 05-10032, and superior officers assigned to the Suffolk County House of Correction and the Suffolk County Jail, in Brown v. Suffolk County, No. 05-10188, against Suffolk alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for failure to calculate hours worked adequately and compensate for overtime wages. 1 On November 28, 2007 the actions were consolidated. The Officers filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on November 15, 2007 and trial was set for January 22, 2008. While the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was pending, a settlement agreement was reached by the parties and the Officers filed a Stipulation of Dismissal on January 22, 2008. The agreement entitled the Officers to unpaid wages in an amount calculated by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the maximum limitations period under the FLSA, three years from the date of each individual officer’s filing of consent, and an equal amount in liquidated damages. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees Ex. 2, ECF No. 127. 2 Those Officers now move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA’s penalty provision, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Suffolk, in response, asks this Court to reduce the amount of fees and costs to which the Officers are entitled. Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees, ECF No. 130.
II. DISCUSSION
A prevailing party in an FLSA action is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ *4 fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Thus, the Officers, as prevailing parties 3 under the settlement agreement, are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
It is well settled that a reasonable amount of fees is determined pursuant to the “lodestar approach,” which involves calculating “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 295 (1st Cir.2001) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)); Mogilevsky v. Bally Total Fitness Corp., 311 F.Supp.2d 212, 216 (D.Mass.2004) (applying the lodestar standard to an FLSA action). The resulting lodestar figure is presumptively reasonable, although the Court retains discretionary authority to adjust the figure upward or downward. Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 937 (1st Cir.1992).
A. The Officers’ Request
The Officers requested attorneys’ fees, as summarized in the table below, total $446,135. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 19.
Name_Hours_Rate_Total_
Daniel W. Rice_1178.57 hours $375/hour $441,962,50
Bryan C. Decker_6.10 hours_$375/hour $ 2,622.50 4
Darlene Delaney_31.00 hours $50/hour $ 1,550.00
The Officers also sought an additional $1,418.76 in costs. Id.
B. Reasonable Hourly Rate
This Court will apply an hourly rate in accordance with the prevailing rates in the community considering the qualifications, experience, and competence of the requesting attorneys. Gay Officers Action League, 247 F.3d at 295. The party seeking attorneys’ fees bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the requested rate. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). In order to satisfy this burden, the requesting party, through affidavits and other satisfactory evidence, must: (1) establish the experience and skill of her attorneys; and (2) inform the Court of the prevailing market rate in the community for similarly situated attorneys. Mogilevsky, 311 F.Supp.2d at 216.
The Officers requested an hourly rate of $375 for Attorney Daniel W. Rice, lead counsel on this matter, $375 for Attorney Bryan C. Decker, employed to assist in calculating damages for this matter, and $50 for Darlene Delaney, an independent contractor employed to assist in distributing damage awards and recording settlement agreements. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 11,18-19.
Suffolk disputes the reasonableness of Rice’s hourly rate. Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 6. The Officers, in support of their petition, submit an affidavit by Rice detailing his long and impressive career in employment law. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees Ex. 1. After graduating cum laude from Suffolk University Law School in 1991, Rice started as an associate attorney with Mirick, O’Connell, DeMallie & Lougee and later spent three years as an employee-union representative. Id. ¶ 4. Presently, Rice is a partner in the firm Glynn, Landry & Rice, LLP, where he has focused his *5 practice for the last fourteen years on representing employees in actions arising from federal and state law. Id. ¶ 5. Rice reports obtaining successful recoveries for numerous clients, including in FLSA claims. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8-9.
The Officers further assert that $375 is the prevailing hourly rate for an attorney of Rice’s caliber. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 14. The Officers proffer an affidavit of Attorney Robert S. Mantell, President of the Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association and an attorney with the firm of Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz, LLP, contending that $375 per hour is the prevailing market rate for attorneys with similar experience and skill to Rice. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees Ex. 11 ¶¶ 1-2, 6. Courts have awarded higher or comparable hourly rates in similar employment law matters. See, e.g., DiFiore v. Am. Airlines, No. 07-10070, 2010 WL 623635, at *5 (D.Mass. Feb. 18, 2010) (awarding lead attorney in a Massachusetts Tips Law action an hourly rate of $400); Tuli v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., No. 07-12338, Mem. and Order Granting Att’ys’ Fees, ECF No. 359, at *3-4 (D. Mass. Jun.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, District Judge.
This motion for attorneys’ fees follows a settlement agreement between Suffolk County (“Suffolk”) and certain unionized correction officers employed by Suffolk (the “Officers”).
1. INTRODUCTION
In January of 2005, complaints were filed independently by line officers assigned to the Suffolk County House of Correction, in Marotta v. Suffolk County, No. 05-10032, and superior officers assigned to the Suffolk County House of Correction and the Suffolk County Jail, in Brown v. Suffolk County, No. 05-10188, against Suffolk alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for failure to calculate hours worked adequately and compensate for overtime wages. 1 On November 28, 2007 the actions were consolidated. The Officers filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on November 15, 2007 and trial was set for January 22, 2008. While the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment was pending, a settlement agreement was reached by the parties and the Officers filed a Stipulation of Dismissal on January 22, 2008. The agreement entitled the Officers to unpaid wages in an amount calculated by PriceWaterhouseCoopers for the maximum limitations period under the FLSA, three years from the date of each individual officer’s filing of consent, and an equal amount in liquidated damages. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees Ex. 2, ECF No. 127. 2 Those Officers now move to recover attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the FLSA’s penalty provision, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Suffolk, in response, asks this Court to reduce the amount of fees and costs to which the Officers are entitled. Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees, ECF No. 130.
II. DISCUSSION
A prevailing party in an FLSA action is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ *4 fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Thus, the Officers, as prevailing parties 3 under the settlement agreement, are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
It is well settled that a reasonable amount of fees is determined pursuant to the “lodestar approach,” which involves calculating “the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 295 (1st Cir.2001) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)); Mogilevsky v. Bally Total Fitness Corp., 311 F.Supp.2d 212, 216 (D.Mass.2004) (applying the lodestar standard to an FLSA action). The resulting lodestar figure is presumptively reasonable, although the Court retains discretionary authority to adjust the figure upward or downward. Lipsett v. Blanco, 975 F.2d 934, 937 (1st Cir.1992).
A. The Officers’ Request
The Officers requested attorneys’ fees, as summarized in the table below, total $446,135. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 19.
Name_Hours_Rate_Total_
Daniel W. Rice_1178.57 hours $375/hour $441,962,50
Bryan C. Decker_6.10 hours_$375/hour $ 2,622.50 4
Darlene Delaney_31.00 hours $50/hour $ 1,550.00
The Officers also sought an additional $1,418.76 in costs. Id.
B. Reasonable Hourly Rate
This Court will apply an hourly rate in accordance with the prevailing rates in the community considering the qualifications, experience, and competence of the requesting attorneys. Gay Officers Action League, 247 F.3d at 295. The party seeking attorneys’ fees bears the burden of establishing the reasonableness of the requested rate. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). In order to satisfy this burden, the requesting party, through affidavits and other satisfactory evidence, must: (1) establish the experience and skill of her attorneys; and (2) inform the Court of the prevailing market rate in the community for similarly situated attorneys. Mogilevsky, 311 F.Supp.2d at 216.
The Officers requested an hourly rate of $375 for Attorney Daniel W. Rice, lead counsel on this matter, $375 for Attorney Bryan C. Decker, employed to assist in calculating damages for this matter, and $50 for Darlene Delaney, an independent contractor employed to assist in distributing damage awards and recording settlement agreements. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 11,18-19.
Suffolk disputes the reasonableness of Rice’s hourly rate. Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 6. The Officers, in support of their petition, submit an affidavit by Rice detailing his long and impressive career in employment law. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees Ex. 1. After graduating cum laude from Suffolk University Law School in 1991, Rice started as an associate attorney with Mirick, O’Connell, DeMallie & Lougee and later spent three years as an employee-union representative. Id. ¶ 4. Presently, Rice is a partner in the firm Glynn, Landry & Rice, LLP, where he has focused his *5 practice for the last fourteen years on representing employees in actions arising from federal and state law. Id. ¶ 5. Rice reports obtaining successful recoveries for numerous clients, including in FLSA claims. Id. ¶¶ 6, 8-9.
The Officers further assert that $375 is the prevailing hourly rate for an attorney of Rice’s caliber. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 14. The Officers proffer an affidavit of Attorney Robert S. Mantell, President of the Massachusetts Employment Lawyers Association and an attorney with the firm of Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz, LLP, contending that $375 per hour is the prevailing market rate for attorneys with similar experience and skill to Rice. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees Ex. 11 ¶¶ 1-2, 6. Courts have awarded higher or comparable hourly rates in similar employment law matters. See, e.g., DiFiore v. Am. Airlines, No. 07-10070, 2010 WL 623635, at *5 (D.Mass. Feb. 18, 2010) (awarding lead attorney in a Massachusetts Tips Law action an hourly rate of $400); Tuli v. Brigham & Women’s Hosp., Inc., No. 07-12338, Mem. and Order Granting Att’ys’ Fees, ECF No. 359, at *3-4 (D. Mass. Jun. 8, 2009) (Gertner, J.) (awarding the following hourly rates, in a hostile work environment and retaliation action to attorneys at a large Boston firm: $630-735 for partners, $570-615 for lead counsel, $410-495 for a fourth year associate, $320-385 for a second year associate, and $320 for a first year associate). In Walsh v. Boston Univ., 661 F.Supp.2d 91, 111 (D.Mass.2009), Judge Stearns awarded the lead attorney in an employment discrimination action an hourly rate of $350 an hour. But see Mills v. Cabral, No. 06-10133, 2010 WL 2553889, at *1 (D.Mass. June 18, 2010) (Stearns, J.) (awarding, in a similarly situated case against Suffolk, lead attorney $350 per hour for core tasks and $225 per hour for non-core tasks).
Suffolk contends that a rate of $375 per hour is excessive for a small firm located outside of Boston and that Rice impermissibly billed at this hourly rate for both “core” and “non-core” legal work. Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 3-4, 6. This Court, although previously distinguishing between the fee apportioned to core and non-core work, no longer recognizes such a distinction. “[T]he lodestar calculation will yield a presumptively correct result and ... ‘additional tinkering merely serves to double count some factors.’ ” Mogilevsky, 311 F.Supp.2d at 217 (quoting System Mgmt., Inc. v. Loiselle, 154 F.Supp.2d 195, 209 (D.Mass.2001)). At the same time, this Court will not “permit an attorney to recover his ‘standard hourly rate ... for performing tasks appropriate to either a less experienced lawyer or a secretary or paralegal.’ ” Mogilevsky, 311 F.Supp.2d at 217-18 (quoting McMillan v. Mass. Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 140 F.3d 288, 308 (1st Cir.1998)). Rice performed many such tasks and frequently failed adequately to identify the nature of the work alleged. See id.; cf Williams v. Town of Randolph, 574 F.Supp.2d 250, 253 (D.Mass.2008) (noting the problematic nature of “general notations, such as ‘research,’ ‘case law review,’ and ‘client conference’ ” in an attorney’s billing records). Accordingly, this Court concludes that a compromised-hourly rate of $350 is reasonable considering Rice’s qualifications and performance in this matter, and applies to the reasonable number of hours Rice expended.
Similarly, an hourly rate of $350 is reasonable for Decker. Although the Officers submit an affidavit of Decker describing his impressive credentials and experience as a partner at Sandulli Grace, P.C., here his work was limited merely to assisting and corresponding with Rice regarding wage calculations. See Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ *6 Fees Exs. 15, 16 ¶ 4. Thus, the Officers may only recover a fee for Decker’s reasonable hours expended at the reduced rate of $350 per hour.
The Officers also request that the reasonable number of hours expended by Delaney, a former legal assistant of Glynn, Landry & Rice, LLP, hired as an independent contractor to assist in the matter, be billed at $50 per hour. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 19. Suffolk does not dispute this hourly rate and this Court concludes that $50 for a legal assistant is reasonable. See Walsh, 661 F.Supp.2d at 113 (holding that a rate of $75 per hour is “roughly in line” with rates for legal interns); Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 8 F.Supp.2d 91, 107 (D.Mass.1998) (Saris, J.) (ruling that the prevailing rate for law clerks and paralegals is $40 per hour for core work and $60 per hour for non-core work).
C. Hours Reasonably Expended
To finish the lodestar calculation, the Court must determine the hours reasonably expended on this matter. The attorney seeking fees bears the burden of providing the Court the number of hours expended shown by “detailed contemporaneous time records” to avoid substantial reduction or, in extreme cases, disallowance of a fee award. Grendel’s Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945, 952 (1st Cir.1984). The Officers generally have met this burden by providing contemporaneous billing records, see Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees Ex. 5.; however the Court is not “handcuffed by counsel’s submission” and will exercise independent judgment in determining the reasonable number of hours devoted. United States v. Metro. Dist. Comm’n, 847 F.2d 12, 18 (1st Cir.1988). The Court will subtract hours that were “unreasonably, unnecessarily, or inefficiently devoted to the case.” Torres-Rivera v. O’Neill-Cancel, 524 F.3d 331, 336 (1st Cir.2008) (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933). This Court reviews only those fees that are contested by Suffolk and, pursuant to a detailed analysis of the billing records, makes the following reductions.
1. Communications Regarding Unrelated Matters
Suffolk asserts that the Officers’ inclusion of communications between Rice and Attorney Bradford Louison in their request for fees is unreasonable, as the communications regard an unrelated matter. Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 4. Louison represents correction officers in a separate FLSA suit against Suffolk, Mills v. Cabral, No. 06-10133. Because these communications appear to concern a separate suit, or are otherwise insufficiently detailed in the billing summary, this Court will subtract them from the total number of hours reasonably spent. See Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 10 (describing Mills as a “similar action brought by corrections officers”). The deductions, as described in the table 5 below, total 5.30 hours. 6
*7 Table 1: Deductions for Communications Regarding Unrelated Matters
Hours Reported Hours Date_Description_Reported Deducted_
8/23/2005 Conferred with BPD attorney on related .10 .10 _actions involving City of Boston._
4/3/2006 Conferred with [redacted] about Boston police .10 .10 _Case._
10/17/2006 Conferred with counsel for Jail employees .40 .40 (Brad Louison) about facts supporting claims; _reviewed records regarding the same._
11/9/2006 Conferred with attorney for Jail employees .40 .40 (Louison) regarding differential and overtime _issues._
1/12/2007 Conferred with attorney for Jail employees .20 .20 _(Louison) about differential issues._
2/9/2007 Conferred with counsel in related action about .20 .10 liability issues; review of documents regarding _the same._
2/20/2007 Conferred with K-9 officer ([redacted]) about 3.90 .20 7 facts supporting claim, including seminar and admissions made by Department official; conferred with [redacted] about differential issues; conferred with Brad Louison about liability _issues; researched law regarding the same._
2/26/2007 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding is- .70 .20 sues in case; conferred with counsel in related ease regarding the same; preparation for _conference and meetings._
9/13/2007 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding pos- 4.90 .20 sible regular rate formula; reviewed proposed stipulation; conferred with [redacted] regarding the same; conferred with Brad Louison about the same; reviewed practice materials on _this issue._
10/26/2007 Correspondence with Brad Louison regarding .10 .10 •_case status._
11/16/2007 Conferred with opposing counsel about related 5.10 .20 action and remaining disputes; status proposal to submit damage calculation to a special master; conferred with [redacted] regarding the same; review of documents regarding collective bargaining/FLSA interplay; responded to concerns raised by Defendant and clients; conferred with counsel in related action, Brad _Louison._
8/24/2008 Conferred with clients ([redacted]) about .70 .20 damage summaries and payments; conferred K-9 officers ([redacted]) regarding the same; conferred with Brad Louison (JOSAC ______attorney) about resolution._
8/17/2009 Conferred with JOSAC attorney (Louison) .20 .20 about case status, areas of mutual concern.
*8 9/29/2009 Reviewed summaries and release forms for 1.50 .20 transmission to clients not yet paid; correspondence to opposing counsel with release to client; conferred with Jail union attorney (Louison) about related case; release in light of apparent _continued violation._
10/3/2009 Conferred with JOSAC attorney about case; .20 .10 conferred with Scott Walker about ease _resolution._
10/8/2009 Preparation for meeting with JOSAC attorney 2.10 2.00 (Louison) for ease settlement issues; review of documents regarding the same; correspondence with him about settlement issues, continuing violations; conferred with client _([redactedl) about payment status._
1/28/2010 Conferred with counsel in related action about .40 .40 contempt request against Sheriffs Department _for failure to pay settlements._
Total_2L20_5150
2. Post-Settlement Communications
Suffolk disputes Rice’s billable hours for post-settlement “communications,” alleging they are patently excessive. Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 4-5. Rice, while duty-bound to provide competent and diligent representation to the Officers, has an obligation to exercise “billing judgment” to ensure that a good faith effort is made to exclude excessive or redundant hours from his fee request. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (“In the private sector, ‘billing judgment’ is an important component in fee shifting. It is no less important here. Hours that are not properly billed to one’s client also are not properly billed to one’s adversary pursuant to statutory authority.”) (quoting Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 891 (D.C.Cir.1980) (en banc)). This Court recognizes the importance in keeping clients well informed and that, because of the multitude of clients involved and length of the litigation, Rice had an increased burden to do so. Nonetheless, the number of hours expended on this task here was excessive. Rice’s billing summary was “liberally peppered” with notations charging for post-settlement communications and conferences. See Dixon v. Int’l Bhd. of Police Officers, 434 F.Supp.2d 73, 81 (D.Mass.2006) (quoting Wilcox v. Stratton Lumber, Inc., 921 F.Supp. 837, 846 (D.Me.1996)). Again, because of Rice’s block billing, the Court estimated the time spent on such communications as totaling 244.93 hours, shown in the fourth column of table 2 below. 8 Further, such notations are frequently redundant and nondescript. For example, charges are made for both “conferring” with clients regarding wage summaries and then again for “corresponding” with clients regarding the same. 9 As a result, this Court deems that the total reported hours expended on communications post-settlement (244.93 hours) shall *9 be reduced by twenty percent, or 48.986 hours.
Table 2: Hours Expended on Communications Post-Settlement
Hours Communication Date_Description_Reported Hours_
1/19/2008 Conferred with K-9 officers ([redacted], [re- 2.60 2.00 dacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]) about settlement agreement; review of documents relating to the same; conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] about settlement on _differential claims._
1/20/2008 Conferred with [redacted] and K-9 officers .80 .80 _about resolution, issues relating to the same._
1/21/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about settlement 2.70 2.70 conditions, concerns about records, and other _issues affecting union._
1/27/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about memorandum, 2.20 1.20 issues regarding calculations; reviewed and re_vised memorandum on basis of his comments._
1/28/2008 Conferred with [redacted] and opposing counsel .60 .40 about consent and calculation issue; reviewed _documents regarding the same._
1/31/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent and 1.20 1.20 _payment issues._
2/5/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about calculation .30 .30 _issue, issues covered in memo._
2/6/2008 Conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] re- 2.00 1.50 garding damage calculations and other matters; reviewed documents relative to damages; con- ■ fenced with opposing counsel regarding PWC _calculations._
2/7/2008 Conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] re- 2.40 2.00 garding damage calculation; correspondence regarding the same; coordination of information regarding consents and plaintiffs included _in action._
2/8/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent issue._10_10_
2/14/2008 Conferred with Captains’ union representative .80 .80 ([redacted]) regarding resolution, damage _calculation._
2/15/2008 Conferred with representatives of Captains 1.00 1.00 union ([redacted]) and Local 419 ([redacted]) regarding damage calculations, settlement _status._
2/20/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent issue; .50 .50 reviewed documents regarding the same; con_ferred with opposing counsel about the same._
2/21/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent issue._10_10
2/27/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding .30 .30 _plaintiffs case._
2/28/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .20 .20 _disputes and consent issues._
*10 3/4/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .40 .40 _disputes; overtime issues._
3/5/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent issues._.20_.20
3/12/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about payment and .40 .40 _settlement issues._
3/18/2008 Conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] about .30 .30 _payment issues._
3/26/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel and [redacted] .40 .40 _about consent issue._
3/27/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about plaintiffs and .60 .40 wage issues; reviewed documents regarding _the same._
4/3/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about calculation .30 .30 _ issues._
4/14/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent and .20 .20 ____payment issues._
4/16/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent issue._120_.20
4/19/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding .40 .40 payment; conferred with [redacted] about the _same._
4/23/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about non- .50 .40 payment; conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] about the same; strategized about _response._
4/24/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about class .40 .40 members; conferred with [redacted] and _[redacted] about damage issues._
4/25/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent issues; .50 .50 conferred with opposing counsel regarding the _same._
5/5/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about .20 .20 _calculations._
5/6/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about wage .20 .20 _summaries._
5/7/2008 Conferred with [redacted], [redacted] about .50 .50 _wage summaries, other issues.______
5/8/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about wage .40 .40 summaries and settlement terms; conferred _ with opposing counsel regarding the same.__
5/9/2008% Review of calculations provided by opposing .20 .00 _counsel._
5/10/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about PWC report._120_120_
5/11/2008 Conferred with [redacted]!- about wage .10 .10 _calculation controversy._______
5/13/2008 Meeting with [redacted], [redacted], and 7.00 2.00 E-Board members from Locals to review records; conferred with opposing counsel; reviewed records for K-9 officers; researched law on precedents in K9 cases; preparation of _memorandum regarding the same.__
5/14/2008 Conferred with Attorney Decker about .60 .60 _calculations._
5/16/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about wage .30 .20 summaries; reviewed wage summary.
*11 5/18/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about calculation .20 .20 _dispute._
5/19/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about wage summar- 1.30 .90 ies; review of K-9 spreadsheets sent by _opposing counsel._
5/20/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries 5.00 5.00 ([redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted]); wrote memorandum regarding the same; conferred about K-9 summaries with K-9 officers ([redacted], [redacted], [redacted], _[redacted])._
5/21/2008 Conferred with clients (see below) regarding 9.00 9.00 wage summaries; correspondence with them _regarding the same._
5/22/2008 Consultations and correspondence with 6.10 6.10 numerous clients about their wage summaries and other issues surrounding the resolution of _the action._
5/23/2008 Conferred with and correspondence with 5.20 5.20 numerous clients about their wage summaries and other issues related to the resolution of the _action._
5/24/2008 Conferred and corresponded with clients 2.00 2.00 _regarding damage summaries._
5/25/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries._1,30_1.30
5/26/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries._2,50_2,50
5/27/2008 Conferred with multiple clients about wage 3.50 3.50 _summaries._
5/28/2008 Conferred with multiple clients regarding wage 3.10 3.10 _summaries._
5/29/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries._2.40_2.40
5/30/2008 Conferred with multiple clients regarding wage .70 .70 _summaries._
5/31/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about ongoing issues, 2.50 2.50 including calculations and releases; conferred and corresponded with clients about damage _summaries._
6/1/2008 Conferred with clients about wage and damage .80 .60 issues; review of documents regarding the
_same._
6/2/2008 Conferred with clients about their wage 1.70 1.70 summaries; corresponded with them about the _same._
6/3/2008 Conferred with multiple clients about their 2.00 2.00 wage summaries; corresponded with them _about the same._
6/4/2008 Conferred with multiple clients about their 1.50 1.50 _wage summaries._ 6/5/2008 Conferred with multiple clients about their 4.50 4.50 _wage summaries._
6/6/2008 Conferred with clients about their wage 2.00 2.00 summaries; corresponded with them about the __same. _
*12 6/7/2008 Conferred with clients about their wage 1.30 1.30 _summaries._
6/8/2008 Conferred with clients about their wage 1.20 1.20 _summaries._
6/9/2008 Conferred with clients about their wage 1.50 1.50 _summaries._
6/10/2008 Conferred with clients about their wage .30 .30 _summaries._
6/11/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries, .40 .40 _releases, payments._
6/12/2008 Conversation with [redacted] regarding pay 2.60 2.60 outs; conversation with opposing counsel regarding payment issues; conferred with clients _about wage summaries._
6/16/2008 Met with [redacted] about K-9 calculations and 3.20 3.20 many errors in K-9 calculations; corresponded _and conferred with clients about the same._
6/17/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries._A0_.40
6/18/2008 Met with [redacted] regarding wage summary; 3.50 3.50 _conferred with clients about the same._
6/19/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries; 2.50 2.50 review of K-9 information; conferred with _[redacted] about payment processing._
6/20/2008 Reviewed K-9 information; conferred with K-9 4.13 3.13 clients about errors in all of their calculations; correspondence to opposing counsel regarding _the same; wrote proposed release form._
6/22/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about wage summary .10 .10 _and damages._
6/23/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about release form; 2.30 1.30 reviewed and drafted release; conferred with clients about wage summaries; correspondence to opposing counsel about release; review of _academy settlement issues._
6/24/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summary; 2.07 1.70 conferred with [redacted] about calculations; conferred with opposing counsel about release; _reviewed release._
6/25/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding .90 .90 wage summaries, releases, payments; con_ferred with clients regarding the same._
6/26/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summary .30 .30 _and differential issues._
6/27/2008 Met with opposing counsel regarding outstand- 1.80 1.80 ing issues; conferred with [redacted] about re_lease, payments, and other matters at issue._
6/29/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about wage summary .20 .20 _and differential issues._
6/30/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about release 1.50 1.50 and other issues, including K-9 matter; conferred with [redacted] about ongoing issues; reviewed wage summary and corresponded with _clients about the same._
7/1/2008 Conferred with clients about payments, .50 .50 releases, summaries.
*13 7/2/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about payments, .30 .30 _releases._
7/3/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about release issues; .80 .80 corresponded and conferred with opposing _counsel regarding the same._
7/7/2008 Conferred with clients regarding wage sum- 4.90 2.40 mary; reviewed correspondence from opposing counsel regarding release; reviewed proposed release from Sheriffs Department; research law on language proposed by Sheriff; conferred with [redacted] about release and system to process signing and payments; conversation with opposing counsel regarding release; review of correspondence from union regarding _release and meeting to sign documents._
7/9/2008 Prepared for meeting with clients about release 7.00 7.00 forms and their wage summaries; correspondence with clients about release forms and summaries; correspondence with clients about K-9 issues; conferred with clients about wage _summaries and releases._
7/10/2008 Prepared for meeting with clients from all ' 11.00 11.00 shifts; met with clients from all shifts at BTU hall throughout the day; conferred with them about release forms, summaries; conferred with clients about release forms and _summaries._
7/12/2008 Conferred with clients about release forms and 1.50 1.40 _summaries; review of the same._
7/15/2008 Correspondence to all plaintiffs about release 4.70 4.70 forms and ongoing issues; correspondence to opposing counsel regarding the same; conferred with clients about wage summaries and releases; wrote memoranda regarding the same; conferred with multiple clients about _their releases and summaries._
7/18/2008 Correspondence to opposing counsel regarding 2.10 2.10 outstanding issues; correspondence to all clients regarding the same; conferred with _clients about release and differential issues._
7/20/2008 Conferred with clients regarding wage summar- 1.70 1.30 ies, differential issue for education and week_end; review of releases._
7/21/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about differ- 3.00 2.00 ential issue; conferred with [redacted] about the same; drafted memo regarding issue; draft proposal for dealing with issue; conferred with _clients about summaries._
7/22/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries .50 .50 _and releases._
7/24/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding pro- 3.90 3.00 posal to deal with ongoing differential issue, K-9 issues, and nisi period; conferred with [redacted] regarding the same; correspondence with clients about wage summaries and releases; wrote supplemental agreement.
*14 7/25/2008 Conferred with client ([redacted]) regarding .80 .50 wage summaries, releases, and payments; _wrote supplemental agreement. _
7/26/2008 Conferred with client ([redacted]) about .20 .20 _summary; reviewed the same. _
7/27/2008 Conferred with clients about summaries and .80 .80 differential issues; review of summaries _regarding the same. _
7/28/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries, .40 .40 releases, payments; call to opposing counsel _regarding the same.__
7/29/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about resolution of 1.50 1.50 differential issues, submission of releases; correspondence to opposing counsel regarding the same; conferred with opposing counsel about settlement of renewed violation; conferred with _client ([redacted]) about wage summary._
7/30/2008 Conferred with clients about Release continued 2.40 2.40 violation issue, and unilateral attempt to cure ongoing violation; wrote memo to plaintiffs _regarding delay in payments._
7/31/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries, 2.30 2.00 payments, releases, continued violation issues; telephone to opposing counsel regarding the same; wrote memorandum regarding unilateral _payments. _
8/1/2008 Conferred with client ([redacted]) about pay- .60 .60 ments and ongoing violation issues; telephone _to opposing counsel regarding the same._
8/4/2008 Correspondence to all clients about delayed 2.50 2.50 payments, ongoing violations, Sheriffs response to the same; correspondence to opposing counsel regarding ongoing issues with payments; conferred with client about supplemental agreement; conferred with opposing counsel regarding the same; reviewed proposal from opposing counsel on supplemental agreement; advised _client regarding the same._
8/5/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about supplemental 2.40 2.40 agreement; reviewed releases for submission; correspondence to opposing counsel regarding submission; met with clients about releases and submission; message to opposing counsel regarding submission of releases; conferred _with client about submission, time for payment._
8/6/2008 Met with [redacted] and reviewed his summary; 1.40 1.00 reviewed wage data; reviewed releases; correspondence to opposing counsel regarding the _same._
8/7/2008 Conferred with clients about settlement issues; 1.00 .80 conferred with opposing counsel regarding the _same; review case document for responses._
8/8/2008 Conferred with clients about damages._TO_.10
8/9/2008 Conferred with client ([redacted]) about .20 .20 _penalties and damages._
*15 8/12/2008 Conferred with K-9 officer ([redacted]) about 1.00 outstanding issues; conferred with client ([redacted] ) about wage summary and settlement; conferred with [redacted] about releases, _submissions, and payments._ 1.00
8/13/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about late payment 1.00 1.00 issue; communication to opposing counsel requesting clarification of same; correspondence _to opposing counsel regarding releases._
8/14/2008 Conferred with clients regarding wage .30 .30 _summary and time for payment._
8/15/2008 Conferred with client ([redacted]), about sum- .90 .90 many; -wrote notice for court regarding enlargement for review period; conversation with clerk about status; correspondence to opposing counsel regarding the same; drafted notice of change of address; wrote memo on update of _status._
8/18/2008 Wrote memo to all plaintiffs about enlargement 1.00 1.00 _of review period, status of payments._
8/19/2008 Conferred with client about ease status; review .50 .50 _of wage summary._
8/20/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries .40 .40 _and payments._
8/21/2008 Conferred with client ([redacted]) about wage .30 .30 _summaries, releases, payments._
8/22/2008 Conferred with clients about payments; re- 2.10 1.50 viewed releases; prepared submission of releases for Sheriff; conferred with opposing counsel _about submission of releases._
8/23/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about payments._10_,10
8/24/2008 Conferred with clients about damage summar- .70 .50 10 ies and payments; conferred with K-9 officers regarding the same; conferred with Brad _Louison (JOSAC attorney) about resolution._
8/25/2008 Conferred with clients about releases and pay- 1.30 1.30 ments; correspondence to opposing counsel _regarding the same._
8/26/2008 Conferred with ([redacted]) about releases and 1.00 .50 summaries; review of payments, releases not _filed._
8/29/2008 Met with K-9 officer about negotiation status; 1.50 1.50 correspondence to opposing counsel regarding settlements; conferred with clients about _releases and summaries._
9/2/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about differentials .10 .10 _and damages._
9/3/2008 Conferred with clients about wage summaries; .70 .50 _review of releases._
9/4/2008 Met with client about wage summary; corre- 2.50 2.50 spondence with opposing counsel about releases; conferred with clients ([redacted]) about the same.
*16 9/7/2008 Conferred with clients about education difieren- .20 .20 _tial, payments ([redacted], [redacted!)._
9/8/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding .10 .10 _case issues._
9/9/2008 Conferred with client ([redacted]) about .10 .10 _payment. _
9/10/2008 Conferred with clients ([redacted]) about sum- .70 .50 mary of hours issue; conferred with opposing counsel about plaintiffs; review of settlement _agreements._
9/11/2008 Conferred with K-9 officer about settlement .20 .20 _dispute._
9/12/2008 Conferred with clients about payment disputes, .40 .40 _differential pay._
9/15/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about .10 .10 _plaintiffs._
9/17/2008 Conferred with K-9 officer about settlement .50 .50 _issues; K-9 dispute._
9/18/2008 Telephone to opposing counsel; review of .20 .10 _correspondence relating to calculations._
9/19/2008 Review of releases; conferred with opposing 2.20 2.20 counsel regarding K-9 portion and other matters; correspondence with K-9 clients regarding the same; correspondence with [redacted] on ongoing issues; conferred with other client _[redacted! about the same issue._
9/23/2008 Conferred with K-9 officer about settlement .40 .40 dispute, conferred with client ([redacted]) _about education differential, continued violation._
9/29/2008 Conferred with clients about calculation issues._.30_150
9/30/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent list; .90 .90 conferred with opposing counsel about consent _issue; review documents regarding the same._
10/2/2008 Met with members of Union Executive Board 2.50 2.50 about summaries; reviewed release; cover _letter to Sheriff regarding the same._
10/9/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about calculation .10 .10 _dispute._
10/10/2008 Conferred with [redacted], about his wage 1.50 1.50 summary; reviewed release form; submitted same to Sheriff; telephone to opposing counsel _regarding settlement issues._
10/11/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about consent issue; .40 .20 _strategized about the same._
10/14/2008 Conferred with client, [redacted], about his .30 .30 _summary._
10/15/2008 Met with client ([redacted]) about wage sum- 1.00 1.00 mary; reviewed release with her; correspon_dence to opposing counsel about the same._
10/17/2008 Conversation with K-9 officer about delay in .40 .40 settlement; correspondence to him about the __same._
10/20/2008 Correspondence with client about Sheriffs .30 .30 continued failure to address outstanding issues,
*17 including K-9 case and provide information _about employees not yet paid._
10/29/2008 Met with [redacted! about wage summary._L00_1,00
10/31/2008 Conferred with K-9 officer about payment .20 .20 dispute; conferred with opposing counsel _regarding the same._
11/3/2008 Conferred with client about release and wage .50 .20 summary; review of court order regarding _case._
11/6/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding K-9 .50 .40 issue, review period; reviewed releases and _transmitted same to opposing counsel._ 11/10/2008 Called clerk about extending date for review._10_10
11/13/2008 Correspondence with [redacted] about K-9 .20 .20 issue; conferred with K-9 officers about the _same._
11/14/2008 Correspondence to opposing counsel regarding .60 .60 failure to address K-9 issue; conferred with K-_9 officers about the same._
11/19/2008 Conferred with K-9 officer [redacted] about .30 .30 damage issues; review of damages regarding _the same._
11/20/2008 Conferred with client about superior officers’ .20 .20 _calculations._
11/21/2008 Reviewed summary with client, [redacted],_1,00_1,00
11/24/2008 Met with K-9 officers about continued delays 2.00 1.50 and failure to correct errors in calculations; _strategized about the same._
11/25/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about court .40 .40 _conference, ongoing K-9 damage issues._
12/2/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about K-9 .30 .30 _issues and related matters._
12/3/2008 Review of K-9 related documents; correspon- 1.50 1.00 dence to opposing counsel regarding K-9 issues; conferred with K-9 officers regarding _the same._
12/10/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about K-9 .10 .10 _issues._
12/11/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about damage issue._120_120
12/15/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about K-9 damage .10 .10 _issue._
12/17/2008 Correspondence to opposing counsel regarding .20 .20 K-9 damage issue; conferred with [redacted] _regarding the same._
12/19/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about payment and .20 .20 _calculation disputes._
12/22/2008 Conferred with [redacted] about K-9 nonpay- 1.20 .60 ment; wrote request for status conference; conferred with opposing counsel about the _same._
12/23/2008 Conferred with opposing counsel about delays 1.00 1.00 in K-9 settlement; correspondence regarding the same; conferred with K-9 officers about settlement issues.
*18 1/5/2009 Conferred with [redacted] regarding damages._10_10
1/7/2009 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding .20 .20 damages issues; conferred with [redacted] _about the same._
1/8/2009 Conferred with K-9 officers about K-9 pay- 1.10 1.10 ments; conferred with opposing counsel regarding same; correspondence to clients about _status; review of wage summary and release. ■_
1/12/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .30 .30 _issues._
1/13/2009 Conferred with K-9 officers about partial pay- .50 .50 ments; concerns about unilateral payment, and correspondence with Sheriffs attorney; con_ferred with officers about damage issues._
1/16/2009 Conferred with K-9 officers about payments .90 .90 made, and impact on settlement agreement, and _about status conference._
1/20/2009 Attended local union meetings on status of case, 2.20 2.20 _upcoming conference._
1/22/2009 Conferred with client ([redacted]) about .20 .20 _waiver of rights._
1/23/2009 Conferred with opposing counsel about K-9 1.70 1.50 damage issue and continued errors in calculations; reviewed spreadsheets regarding same; conferred with [redacted] about damages; _wrote status memo._
1/26/2009 Conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] about 2.20 1.60 status confez-enee and outstanding payment issues; conferred with opposing counsel regarding the same; wrote memorandum regarding issues; conferred with clerk regarding issue; corresponded with K-9 clients about issues; _reviewed order on motion to enlarge._
1/27/2009 Telephone to opposing counsel regarding case; .50 .50 _conferred with [redacted] regarding the same._
1/29/2009 Correspondence with K-9 officers about wage 2.30 2.30 summary issues; conferred with officer regard_ing the same._
1/30/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about K-9 .40 .40 _calculations._
2/2/2009 Met with K-9 officers about calculations._2.00_2.00
2/3/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payments, case .40 .40 _status, possible continued violations._
2/4/2009 Telephone from [redacted] z’egarding payments._10_.10
2/5/2009 Conferred with opposing counsel about sum- .70 .70 maries; review of payment records; conferred with [redacted] regarding the same, and _ongoing issues; telephone to opposing counsel._
2/9/2009 Conferred with K-9 officer about calculation .70 .70 and settlement dispute; continued errors made _in calculations._
2/23/2009 Correspondence to opposing counsel about K-9 2.80 1.80 calculations; conferred with [redacted] about calculation erz’ors; prepared and reviewed spz-eadsheets regarding the same.
*19 2/24/2009 Reviewed calculation of K-9 officer, [redacted], .40 .40 _and his correspondence regarding the same._
3/3/2009 Conferred with Gary [redacted] about calcula- .40 .30 tion dispute; reviewed summary; correspon_dence to opposing counsel regarding the same._
3/4/2009 Conferred with K-9 officers ([redacted]) about .40 .40 payment dispute; conferred with [redacted] _about calculation issue._
3/5/2009 Conferred with K-9 officer ([redacted]) .40 .40 _regarding calculation and settlement issues._
3/6/2009 Conferred with K-9 officer ([redacted]) .30 .30 regarding calculation issues; telephone to _opposing counsel regarding the same._
3/7/2009 Conferred with officer ([redacted]) regarding .30 .30 _calculation issues._
3/17/2009 Conferred with K-9 officers ([redacted]) about .40 .40 _payment error controversy._
3/18/2009 Met with [redacted] about K-9 issues; met with 2.50 2.00 opposing counsel about the same, and other outstanding issues; review of documents and summaries to support amended payments; con_ferred with [redacted] about payment issues._
3/24/2009 Conferred with K-9 officer ([redacted]) about .20 .20 _calculation issues._
3/25/2009 Conferred with K-9 officer [redacted] about .30 .30 _calculations._ 3/26/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about K-9 .40 .40 settlement issues; conferred with him about _differentials._
4/1/2009 Conferred with K-9 plaintiffs about calculation .70 .70 error dispute; communications to Sheriffs _Department about same._
4/2/2009 Conferred with K-9 clients regarding K-9 .10 .10 _dispute._
4/3/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about differentials .70 .70 and underpayments; conferred with K-9 officer about payments; telephone to Defendant _regarding the same._
4/6/2009 Conferred with [redacted] regarding .20 .20 _differentials._
4/7/2009 Telephone to Sheriff regarding K-9 issue; con- .40 .40 _ferred with K-9 clients regarding the same._
4/8/2009 Conferred with K-9 clients regarding K-9 .50 .50 issues; telephone to opposing counsel _regarding the same._
4/9/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about K-9 payments._A0_.40
4/10/2009 Correspondence with ([redacted]) about pay- 1.30 1.30 ments and calculation controversy; correspondence to opposing counsel regarding the same; conferred with K-9 clients regarding the same _and case status._
4/14/2009 Conferred with K-9 officer ([redacted]) about .30 .30 _settlement issues._
*20 4/16/2009 Correspondence to opposing counsel regarding K-9 issues; correspondence to [redacted] _regarding the same._ .50 .50
4/17/2009 Conferred with [redacted] regarding case._20_.20
4/18/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about non-payment .40 .40 issue; conferred with opposing counsel _regarding the same._
4/22/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about settlement and .90 .60 11 ongoing dispute over payments; conferred with opposing counsel regarding the same; conferred with counsel regarding settlement and fee petition; conferred with clerk’s office about _order and request to extend._
4/28/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .10 .10 _status._
5/4/2009 Conferred with opposing counsel regarding set- .20 .20 _tlement period expansion due to K-9 issue._
5/6/2009 Conferred with K-9 officers about payment and .50 .50 calculation dispute; conferred with opposing _counsel regarding the same._
5/7/2009 Drafted request for enlargement due to K-9 .60 .60 ongoing issues; filed same with court; con_ferred with them regarding the same._
5/13/2009 Correspondence with opposing counsel regard- 1.20 1.20 ing K-9 payments; correspondence with K-9 officers ([redacted]) regarding the same; review of summaries and their comments _about the same._
5/18/2009 Communications with [redacted] about calcula- .90 .90 tion error; review of documents regarding the same; correspondence with opposing counsel regarding the same; conferred with [redacted], _and [redacted] about payments._
5/19/2009 Conferred with counsel regarding fee petition; .50 .00 12 _review of documents regarding the same._
6/8/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .10 .10 _status._
6/16/2009 Reviewed correspondence from opposing coun- .40 .00 sel regarding PWC calculations; review of _calculations._
6/17/2009 Conferred with client about payment status._10_.10
6/22/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about plaintiff status._10_.10
7/12/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about K-9 payment._10_.10
7/13/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .10 .10 _status._
7/25/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .10 .10 __status._
7/27/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .10 .10 _status._
8/17/2009 Conferred with JOSAC attorney (Louison) .20 .00 13 about case status, areas of mutual concern.
*21 8/18/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about union meeting .20 .20 _regarding payments and ongoing violations._
9/14/2009 Conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] about 2.00 2.00 unpaid class members; review of records showing the same; conferred with opposing counsel _regarding the same._
9/24/2009 Reviewed correspondence from Sheriffs .10 .10 Department Personnel Director about _payment issues._
9/28/2009 Corresponded with clients regarding unclaimed 1.50 1.30 monies; review of documents regarding the _same._
9/29/2009 Reviewed summaries and release forms for 1.50 1.30 14 transmission to clients not yet paid; correspondence to opposing counsel with release of client; conferred with Jail union attorney (Louison) about related case, release in light of apparent _continued violation._ _
9/30/2009 Conferred with client about wage summary._ISO_,30
10/3/2009 Conferred with JOSAC attorney about case; .20 .10 15 conferred with Scott Walker about case _resolution._
10/5/2009 Review of releases; preparation of transmittal .60 .30 of releases to opposing counsel; eorrespon_dence with him regarding the same._
10/6/2009 Review of releases; preparation of transmittal .50 .20 of releases to opposing counsel; correspondence with him regarding same; conferred with _[redacted] about payment status._
10/8/2009 Preparation for meeting with JOSAC attorney 2.10 .10 16 (Louison) for case settlement issues; review of documents regarding the same; correspondence with him about settlement issues, continuing violations; conferred with client ( _[redacted]) about payment status._
10/13/2009 Reviewed settlement agreements; correspon- .30 .30 _dence to opposing counsel regarding the same._
10/14/2009 Reviewed settlement documents and case 1.90 1.00 status; filed enlargement; conferred with opposing counsel regarding the same; attended _meeting of union officials regarding status._
10/15/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .10 .10 _status._
10/19/2009 Conferred with Sheriffs Department about .20 .20 client payment; conferred with Peter Moccio _about outstanding money owed plaintiffs._
10/20/2009 Conferred with Department about remaining .30 .20 employees; reviewed information regarding the same.
*22 10/28/2009 Conferred with client about payment status._10_.10
10/30/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payment .20 .20 status; conferred with opposing counsel about unilateral payments made to cover continuing _violation._
11/2/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about release form._¡20_.20
11/3/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about latest pay- .30 .30 ments, inquiry about formula Sheriff is using to _pay for differentials._
11/4/2009 Reviewed documents for fee petition; reviewed 2.75 1.00 17 releases; correspondence to opposing counsel; conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] about plaintiffs not able to locate; correspondence to _opposing counsel about remaining plaintiffs._
11/5/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about calculation 1.80 .80 summary and release; review of the same; review and coordinate case information for _closeout of matter._
11/9/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about payments to .20 .20 _remaining plaintiffs._
11/13/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about back pay issue .20 .20 _impacting plaintiff._
11/16/2009 Conferred with plaintiff about wage payment._10_.10
11/27/2009 Review release and transmit to Sheriff._10_10
12/29/2009 Conferred with client about his settlement .20 .20 _agreement._
1/5/2010 Conferred with Department and [redacted] .30 .30 _about outstanding payments._
1/6/2010 Conferred with [redacted] about non-payment .50 .50 issues; communication to Department about _release submitted._
1/9/2010 Conferred with [redacted] about summary .30 .30 _issues, including outstanding payments due._
1/11/2010 Conferred with [redacted] about release; .50 .30 _review of outstanding payment issues._
1/15/2010 Review order on motion to enlarge; communi- .10 .10 cation to opposing counsel request conference _to narrow dispute._
1/28/2010 Conferred with counsel in related action about .40 .00 18 contempt request against Sheriffs Department _for failure to pay settlements._
1/29/2010 Conferred with opposing counsel in response to .50 .00 19 request for issue narrowing under Rule 7, and _other matters._
2/1/2010 Conferred with Department about payment .10 .10 _issue impacting class member._
*23 2/6/2010 Review recent order supporting fee petition; .40 .00 20 conferred with opposing counsel regarding the same in effort to narrow dispute over fee _petition._
3/1/2010 Conferred with opposing counsel about case .20 .00 21 status, including attempt to narrow fee petition _issues._
3/3/2010 Conferred with [redacted] about non-payment; .60 .60 notified opposing counsel of the same; correspondence from Bill Sweeney about reason for non-payments, conferred with opposing counsel _regarding the same._
3/25/2010 Correspondence to opposing counsel regarding .20 .20 _payment and compliance issues._
3/26/2010 Conferred with [redacted] about his release._A0_,20
4/1/2010 Conferred with opposing counsel about compli- .20 .20 anee issues, attempt to narrow outstanding _issues._
4/2/2010 Conferred with opposing counsel about spread- .40 .40 sheets relating to compliance issues, and Commonwealth’s payment of settlements; conferred _with class representatives regarding the same._
4/4/2010 Correspondences to opposing counsel about .20 .20 spreadsheets relating to compliance issues; follow up with class representatives regarding _the same._
4/7/2010 Reviewed settlement agreement; transmitted .10 .10 _the same to opposing counsel._
Total_278.65_244.93
3. Petition for Attorneys’ Fees
Finally, Suffolk contends that the Officers’ should not be entitled to recover fees for Rice’s hours spent preparing the Petition for Attorneys’ Fees. Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 5-6. The First Circuit consistently has held that “time reasonably expended in connection with fee applications is itself compensable,” Brewster v. Dukakis, 3 F.3d 488, 494 (1st Cir. 1993), however the Court will exercise its discretion to ensure that such an award is fair and reasonable. This Court views the reasonableness of the hours expended in preparing a fee petition in light of the fact that such preparation “often amounts to little more than ‘documenting what a lawyer did and why he or she did it.’ ” Brewster, 3 F.3d at 494 (quoting Gabriele v. Southworth, 712 F.2d 1505, 1507 (1st Cir. 1983)). Rice submits that he expended a total of 45.85 hours preparing the fee petition, as shown in the table provided below. 22 See generally Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees Ex. 5.. Given the fact that Rice purports contemporaneously to have recorded the billing records, 45.85 hours is excessive and must be reduced to 35 hours. Thus, 10.85 hours must be subtracted from the *24 total number of hours Rice expended on this matter.
Table 3: Hours Expended Preparing for Fee Petition
Date Description Hours Reported Fee Hours
4/22/2009 Conferred with [redacted] about settlement and .90 .30 ongoing dispute over payments; conferred with opposing counsel regarding the same; conferred with counsel regarding settlement and fee petition; conferred with clerk’s office about order and _request to extend._____
5/19/2009 Conferred with counsel regarding fee petition; _review of documents regarding the same._ .50 .50
11/4/2009 Reviewed documents for fee petition; reviewed releases; correspondence to opposing counsel; conferred with [redacted] and [redacted] about plaintiffs not able to locate; correspondence to _opposing counsel about remaining plaintiffs. 2.75 1.75
11/6/2009 Researched law on fee award in FLSA actions. 1.00 1.00
11/11/2009 Researched law for fee petition; reviewed settle- 2.30 1.50 ment agreements for transmittal to Sheriff; con_ferred with opposing counsel about case status._
11/30/2009 Draft/revised fee petition. 6.50 6.50
12/1/2009 Draft/revised fee petition; research law on issues 3.90 3.90 related to the same._
12/2/2009 Draft/revised fee petition. 5.00 5.00
12/3/2009 Draft/revised fee petition. 1.00 1.00
12/5/2009 Draft/revised fee petition. .70 .70
12/6/2009 Draft/revised fee petition. .80 80
12/7/2009 Draft/revised fee petition. 3.60 3.60
12/8/2009 Draft/revised fee petition. 3.00 3.00
12/9/2009 Draft/revise fee petition; conferred with _[redacted] about payment summary dispute. 2.40 2.30
12/15/2009 Draft/revised fee petition; researched law on awards in other FLSA cases. 3.00 3.00
_ 12/16/2009 Review/analyze and revised fee petition. 2.80 2.80
1/25/2010 Review/analyzed fee awards for amendments to _draft of fee petition._ 1.60 1.60
1/29/2010 Conferred with opposing counsel about delays in .50 .50 response to request for narrowing under Rule 7, and other matters._
2/3/2010 Drafted and revised fee petition. 2.50 2.50
2/5/2010 Draft/revise fee petition. 3.00 3.00
2/6/2010 Review recent order supporting fee petition; conferred with opposing counsel regarding the same _in effort to narrow dispute over fee petition._ .40 .40
3/1/2010 Conferred with opposing counsel about case status, including attempt to narrow fee petition issues. .20 .20
Total 48.35 45.85
*25 Accordingly, this Court concludes that the reasonable hours extended by Rice in this matter, after taking into account the above deductions (5.30 for unrelated communications, 48.986 for excessive post-settlement communications, and 10.85 for the fee petition), total 1,113.434 hours.
Suffolk did not dispute the reasonableness of the number of hours expended by Decker or Delaney. As a result, this Court finds that Decker’s purported 6.10 hours and Delaney’s purported 31 hours are reasonable.
D.Adjustment of Lodestar Calculation
It is within the Court’s discretion to adjust the lodestar figure. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933. -In exercising such discretion, the results obtained are the “preeminent consideration.” Coutin v. Young & Rubicam P.R., Inc., 124 F.3d 331, 338 (1st Cir.1997). Determining the nature of the rights obtained includes an analysis of: “(1) a plaintiffs success claim by claim; (2) the relief actually obtained; and (3) the societal importance of the right which has been vindicated.” Mogilevsky, 311 F.Supp.2d at 221 (quoting Coutin, 124 F.3d at 338) (internal quotations omitted).
The Officers contend they achieved the most favorable results attainable under the FLSA and that such results serve an important public interest and that the Officers should, therefore, recover fees accordingly. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 5, 17. The Court does not dispute that the Officers’ received a favorable settlement agreement furthering FLSA’s important societal interests, however this Court concludes that the lodestar sufficiently compensates the parties and equally serves society’s interests. See Mogilevsky, 311 F.Supp.2d at 221 (the rights the FLSA protects are of “substantial importance”). Enhancement of the lodestar is rare and the Officers have failed to overcome the strong presumption favoring its reasonableness. Lipsett, 975 F.2d at 942 (“The [enhancement] exception is a tiny one— and we will not permit it to eclipse the rule.”). Accordingly, this Court awards the Officers a fee equal to the lodestar calculation, as shown below, without further adjustment.
E. Total Lodestar Calculation
The total lodestar calculation is as follows:
Name_Hours_Rate_Total_
Daniel W. Rice_1,113.434 hours $350/hour $389,701.90
Bryan C. Decker_6.10 hours_$350/hour $ 2,135.00
Darlene Delaney_31.00 hours_$50/hour $ 1,550.00
Total_$393,386.90
F. Costs
In addition to the lodestar calculation, this Court must determine the costs awarded to the Officers. The Officers requested, and Suffolk did not dispute, an award of $1,418.76. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees 19; see Opp’n Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys’ Fees. This Court, thus, awards the Officers $1,418.76 in costs.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Officers’ Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, ECF No. 127 is ALLOWED. The total award for fees and costs equals $394,805.66.
SO ORDERED.
. Marotta was filed on January 6, 2005. Compl. and Jury Demand, ECF No. 1. Brown was filed on January 28, 2005. Compl. and Jury Demand, ECF No. 1. Each was subsequently amended numerous times to include all presently stated Officers.
. Another dispute arose due to Suffolk’s further noncompliance, forcing the parties to enter into a supplemental agreement safeguarding the Officers’ right to seek redress for future violations of the FLSA by Suffolk. Pis.’ Pet. Att’ys' Fees Ex. 9.
. As indicated in the Stipulation of Dismissal, the parties have agreed that the Officers are entitled to their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Stipulation of Dismissal II 3, ECF No. 111.
. The Officers requested a fee of $2,622.50 for Attorney Bryan C. Decker, pursuant to his reported 6.10 hours expended on this matter at a rate of $375 per hour. The total fee upon such a calculation, however, comes to $2,287.50. See Pis.' Pet. Att'ys' Fees 18.
. The information contained in this table, and all other tables below, is based on the Billing Summary submitted by Glynn, Landry, & Rice, LLP. Pls.’s Pet. Att’ys' Fees Ex. 5.
. Suffolk also asserts that there is a frequency of communications “with counsel,” which must result in a reduction of attorneys' fees. Opp’n Pis.' Pet. Att'ys’ Fees 4. This Court finds numerous entries reporting communications with various officers (the specific officers' names having been redacted in the billing summary), however only four entries report general communications “with counsel.” Accordingly, this Court finds no reduction necessary for excessive communications "with counsel.”
. Due to block billing the Court is unable to decipher the exact time devoted to each task. As a result, the Court used its judgment in apportioning a reasonable number of hours expended for the tasks described and deducted accordingly.
. This table, pursuant to Suffolk’s argument, only calculates those post-settlement hours categorized as "communications” in Rice’s billing summary. Pis.’ Pet. Att'ys' Fees Ex. 5.
. As one such example, 3.20 hours is charged for the following description for the June 16, 2008 billing entry: "Met with [redacted] about K-9 calculations and many errors in K-9 calculations; corresponded and conferred with clients ([redacted]) about the same.” Pis.' Pet. Att'ys’ Fees Ex. 5 at 67.
. As apportioned and deducted supra in Part II.C.l.
. As apportioned and deducted infra in Part II.C.3.
. As apportioned and deducted infra in Part II.C.3.
. As apportioned and deducted supra in Part *21 II.C.l.
. As apportioned and deducted supra in Part II.C.l.
. As apportioned and deducted infra in Part II.C.3.
. As apportioned and deducted infra in Part II.C.3.
.This table represents the Court's determination of the number of hours devoted to preparation of the petition for fees. Due to block billing, again, the Court had to exercise its sound judgment in so deciphering.
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
726 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2010 WL 2989994, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marrotta-v-suffolk-county-mad-2010.