Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Morin v. Nu-Way Plastering Inc.

December 19, 2005

PATRICK MORIN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
v.
NU-WAY PLASTERING INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lindsay, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the court is the plaintiffs' motion pursuant to Rule 54(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an award of attorneys' fees and costs as provided by Section 502(g)(2)(D) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (g)(2)(D) following the parties' Stipulation of Settlement and Judgment. In support of their application, the plaintiffs' have submitted a Notice of Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs, the Affidavit of Marty Glennon dated April 14, 2005, a Memorandum of Law in Support of an Award of Attorney's Fees and Costs and the Reply Affidavits of Marty Glennon and Stephen Bowen dated May 19, 2005 and May 20, 2005, respectively. In opposition, the defendants have submitted the Affidavit of Francis X. Casale, Jr. dated May 9, 2005, the Affidavit of Marcella Gambles dated May 10, 2005 and a Memorandum of Law. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned awards attorneys' fees in the amount of $13,151.81, audit costs in the amount of $4,114.31 and disbursements in the amount of $434.81, for a total award of $17,700.93.

DISCUSSION

The plaintiffs, the trustees and fiduciaries of the Empire State Carpenters Welfare, Pension, Vacation, Annuity, Scholarship, Labor-Management Cooperation and Charitable Trust Funds (the "Funds") filed the complaint in this action on January 24, 2003 and, on May 16, 2003, filed an amended complaint seeking an award against the defendants consisting of unpaid fringe benefit contributions plus interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief pursuant to ERISA Sections 502(g)(2) and 515, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2) and 1145. The defendants subsequently agreed to an audit and the firm of Schultheis & Pannettieri, LLP was retained to conduct an audit of the defendants' books and records. (Casale Aff. in Opp. at ¶ 7). An audit report was issued on September 18, 2003 reporting a deficiency of $83,312.80. (See Audit Report, annexed to the Glennon Aff. as Ex. 5). This report was subsequently revised three times and the amount of the deficiency was ultimately reduced to $4,016.20. (See Audit Reports annexed to the Glennon Aff. as Exs. 6, 7 and 9).

The parties then entered into a Stipulation of Settlement dated May 20, 2005, whereby the defendants agreed to pay $2,927.82 to settle the fringe benefit deficiencies alleged by the plaintiffs. (Glennon Aff. at ¶ 5). The parties further stipulated that the determination of the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs due to the plaintiffs would be determined by the court. Accordingly, the plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $17,535.75 and costs and disbursements incurred through March 14, 2005 in the amount of $6,393.18, for a total award of $23,928.93. (Glennon Aff. at ¶ 2). Defendants dispute this amount, claiming that it is excessive.

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2), the plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs. A plaintiff may be considered the prevailing party for attorneys' fees purposes "'if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit the parties sought in bringing the suit.'" Koster v. Perales, 903 F.2d 131, 134 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep. School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 1491 (1989)). "At a minimum, the plaintiff must demonstrate a change in the legal relationship between itself and the defendant arising from the resolution of the lawsuit." Id. at 134 (citation omitted). This change in legal relationship may be accomplished through monetary settlement. Id. (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760-761, 107 S.Ct. 2672 (1987) (additional citations omitted). In addition, "[a] plaintiff may be considered a prevailing party even though the relief ultimately obtained is not identical to the relief demanded in the complaint." Id. (citation omitted); see also King v. JCS Enterprises, 325 F. Supp.2d 162, 168 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (finding no reason to reduce requested reasonable attorneys' fees based on alleged lack of success despite fact that complaint sought unpaid contributions in the amount of $396,000 and only $108,108 were actually awarded explaining "[t]hat the amount of unpaid contributions was less than originally sought does not diminish the level of the Trustee's success."). Moreover, in an action on behalf of a plan to enforce section 515 in which a judgment in favor of the plan is awarded, the award of attorneys' fees and costs is mandatory. Iron Workers Dist. Council v. Hudson Steel Fabricators & Erectors, 68 F.3d 1502, 1506 (2d Cir. 1995); Devito v. Hempstead China Shop, 831 F. Supp. 1037, 1042 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) (citations omitted).

Although the attorneys' fees and costs here exceed the actual amount of the settlement, the purpose of § 1132(g)(2)'s fee and cost shifting mandate is deterrence. Lewart v. Woodhull, 549 F. Supp. 879, 885-86 (S.D.N.Y. 1982); Iron Workers, 68 F.3d at 1506-07. Thus, the court declines the defendants' invitation to limit the award of attorneys' fees and costs to the sum reached in settlement of this case and will instead award the reasonable costs and fees expended by the plaintiffs as is required by the statute.

Attorney's Fees

In this Circuit, attorneys' fee awards are determined by calculating the "lodestar" figure, which is based on the number of reasonable hours expended, multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. See Cruz v. Local Union No. 3 of the Int'l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 34 F.3d 1148, 1159 (2d Cir. 1994) (citing F.H. Krear & Co. v. Nineteen Named Trustees, 810 F.2d 1250, 1263 (2d Cir. 1987)). The party seeking reimbursement bears the burden of proving the reasonableness and necessity of hours spent and rates charged. See generally, New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136 (2d Cir. 1983). To this end, a fee application must be supported by contemporaneous time records that describe with specificity, by attorney, the nature of the work done, the hours expended, and the dates. Id. at 1147--48.

Contemporaneous Time Records

The court has reviewed the records submitted by the plaintiffs for legal services rendered in connection with this matter. While the records are not, in some instances, abundantly detailed, the level of detail is sufficient to meet the requisite standard. Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiffs have satisfied the contemporaneous record requirement.

Reasonableness of Hourly Rates

With regard to the reasonableness of the hourly rate charged, the hourly rate charged should be "'in line with those [rates] prevailing in the community for similar services of lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.'" Cruz, 34 F.3d at 1159 (citing Blum v. Stetson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 n.11 (1984)). The "prevailing community" that a district court should consider is usually "'the district in which the court sits,' unless there has been a showing that 'special expertise of counsel from a . . . [different] district was required.'" Id. (quoting Polk v. New York State Dep't of Correctional Servs., 722 F.2d 23, 25 (2d Cir. 1983)). In this district, prevailing rates have ranged from $200-$300 for partners, $200-$250 for senior associates and $100-$150 for junior associates. See, e.g., Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven, CV 94-2622 (FB), 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11462, at *17-18 ( E.D.N.Y., June 13, 2005); King, 325 F. Supp.2d 169-70; Duke v. County of Nassau, CV 97-1495 (JS), 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 26536, at *5-6 (E.D.N.Y. April 14, 2003). The prevailing rate for paralegals is $75. Perdue v. C.U.N.Y., 13 F.Supp. 2d 326, 346 (E.D.N.Y. 1998).

Plaintiffs' papers set forth the position and experience of the individuals reflected on the time records. (Glennon Aff. at ΒΆ 11). The rates charged by each individual is within or below the prevailing rates in this District for the respective individual's position and experience and are thus reasonable rates. The hourly rates and hours billed appear in the following chart: Attorney Status Date Rate Hours Total Robert M. Archer Member 11/2/01 - 12/31/03 $200 .05 $50.00 1/1/04 - 3/14/05 $250 .1 $25.00 John H. Byington Member 9/22/03 - 3/14/05 $225 3.85 $866.25 Marty Glennon Member 12/28/01 - 12/31/03 $175 .25 $43.75 1/1/04 - 12/31/04 $185 3.5 $647.50 1/1/05 - 3/14/05 $190 5.25 $997.50 Richard Rodriguez Associate 9/6/01 - 12/31/01 $90 6.8 $612.00 1/1/02 - 3/14/05 $125 31 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.