Rahman v. July 96 Corp.
This text of Rahman v. July 96 Corp. (Rahman v. July 96 Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED MOHAMMAD RAHMAN and JOSE VARGAS, DOC DATE FILED: _ 6/14/2022 Plaintiffs, -against- 21 Civ. 9649 (AT) JULY 96 CORP., MELITIOS MELETIOU, and ORDER FANIS TSIAMTSIOURIS, Defendants. ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: The Court has reviewed the parties’ motion for settlement approval, ECF No. 28. By June 17, 2022, counsel for Plaintiffs must submit contemporaneous billing records supporting their request for attorneys’ fees. “In this circuit, a proper fee request ‘entails submitting contemporaneous billing records documenting, for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the nature of the work done.’” Lopez v. Nights of Cabiria, LLC, 96 F. Supp. 3d 170, 181 (S.D.N-Y. 2015) (quoting Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)). The Court shall not approve an attorneys’ fees award absent such documentation. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 14, 2022 New York, New York
ANALISA TORRES United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rahman v. July 96 Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rahman-v-july-96-corp-nysd-2022.