The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sweet, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Lou Mango ("Mango"), Denis Hurley, Diane Ziccardi,
Diana Mascioni-Shanahan, Kaaryn Johnson, Michael Brachule,
Bobbie Richardson, Thomas Tolan, Lillian Bianco-Pereira, Don
Arata, Marilyn Coles, Lee Booker and Vincent Galella
(collectively referred to as "Mango") have moved for an award
of attorney's fees in the underlying action, pursuant to
Section 102 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 412 (the "Act"). For the reasons set forth
the motion is granted, except with respect to those items as
set forth below.
Plaintiffs are members of the defendant Communications Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, Local 1105 ("Local 1105" or the "Union"),
a labor organization located in New York City. Since 1985,
Local 1105 has been affiliated with the Communications Workers
of America ("CWA") and has been the collective bargaining
representative for approximately 7,200 commercial, public
communications, sales and headquarters employees working for
NYNEX, the New York Telephone Company, and American Telephone
and Telegraph Company.
Facts and Prior Proceedings
On October 12, 1990, Mango filed this action pursuant to §§
101(a) and (b) of the Act to compel Local 1105 to hold a
special meeting of its membership to permit the membership to
decide (a) whether to use the American Arbitration Association
("AAA") in conducting the Union's 1990 election of officers,
and (b) whether each candidate for office should be permitted
to designate a member of the Union's election committee (the
The action arose from the alleged refusal of Local 1105 to call
special work locations meetings of its members upon the receipt
of a petition of approximately a quarter of its members
requesting the Union to determine if the majority of its
members want the Union to (a) engage the services of the AAA as
described above and (b) to include members of good standing,
designated by each candidate running for elective office, to be
equal participants in the Committee.
By Order to Show Cause returnable October 19, 1990, Mango moved
for a preliminary injunction ordering the Union to hold the
meeting sought in the complaint. On October 25, 1990, following
a hearing spread out over several days, the Court indicated
that it would grant injunctive relief. When the Union heard
that the Court was inclined to grant injunctive relief, the
Union stated that it would use the AAA and that it would
consent to the placement on the election committee of an
individual designated by Mango. The Union's commitments having
obviated the need for a special meeting of the membership
concerning the elections, the Court dismissed the motion as
moot. Prior to or during the course of the several days of
hearings the Union agreed to augment the Committee by some one
designated by the Mango slate.
By Order to Show Cause dated November 5, 1990, Mango moved for
a second preliminary injunction. By this second motion, Mango
sought to enjoin the Committee and the AAA from conducting any
further election procedures pending a hearing and determination
by this Court of the names of persons eligible to participate
in the election. Mango's position in the hearing of November 8
was that there were 1,945 names of members in good standing of
Local 1105 that did not appear on the Committee's membership
list and 2,283 names on the Committee's membership list that
were not members in good standing of Local 1105.
On the return date of the motion, Mango learned from the
Committee that it had added approximately 600 names to the
Membership list from the 1,945 names that Mango sought to
include as eligible to receive a ballot from the AAA. The
Committee apparently added the names after a review of the
mailing list for the election and a comparison of the list with
the membership cards in file in the Union's office. That review
took place over several days beginning November 5.
In a hearing of November 9, 1990, the Court ruled from the
bench to deny Mango's motion:
Based upon the representation of the [Union] that the
membership list will be made available and upon the authority
of Crowley, in the absence of irreparable injury prior to the
denial of a ballot to a union member, the motion is denied.
Mango's initial fee application sought attorney's fees of
$35,890.50, based on a total number of service hours of 184.66.
The fee request is based on the number of hours multiplied by
the rates of the several attorneys working on the matter. In
his reply affidavit, however, counsel for Mango revised this
figure downward to $29,240.50 to reflect the inadvertent
inclusion in the request for attorney's fees of work that had
been done for the same client on other matters, either prior ...