Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Mister Sprout, Inc v. Williams Farms Produce Sales

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


April 8, 2011

MISTER SPROUT, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAMS FARMS PRODUCE SALES, INC., RESPONDENT.

ORDER

Having reviewed the record herein, including the Court's Decision and Order, dated March 4, 2011, affirming a reparation order of the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") in favor of Williams Farms Produce Sales, Inc. ("Respondent"); Respondent's motion, dated March 11, 2011, seeking attorney's fees, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 499g(c), in the amount of $15,611.25 and costs in the amount of $990.39; Mister Sprout's ("Sprout" or "Petitioner") response, dated March 18, 2011, arguing, among other things, that "the time spent on some of the items listed [on Respondent's time sheets] is not credible"; Respondent's Reply, dated March 18, 2011; and the applicable legal authorities, the Court finds and directs the following:

Respondent's motion for attorney's fees in the amount of $15,611.25 and costs in the amount of $990.39 [#24] is granted. Respondent billed at a rate of $345 per hour, which Sprout does not challenge, and which the Court finds reasonable. (See Decl. of Mark A. Amendola, Esq. in Supp. of Respondent's Mot., dated Mar. 11, 2011); Coe v. Town of Blooming Grove, 714 F. Supp. 2d 439, 450 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Food Auth., Inc. v. Sweet & Savory Fine Foods, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 1738, 2011 WL 477714, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2011). And, the Court finds that the 45.25 hours spent by Respondent defending this action (including a successful motion for summary judgment) are reasonable. See Frankie Boy Produce Corp. v. Sun Pac. Enters., No. 99 Civ. 10158, 2000 WL 1532914, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2000); Kassim v. City of Schenectady, 415 F.3d 46, 254 (2d Cir. 2005) ("degree of [counsel's] success" is of "crucial importance . . . in determining the fee [award]"); Agri Exotic Trading, Inc. v. New Man Designed Sys., Cv 2007-49, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113123, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. May 22, 2008). Sprout's objections do not take into account the time that Respondent spent on, among other things, "legal research, correspondence to client, drafting a proposed order, and reviewing local filing rules." (Sprout's Response ¶ 1; Respondent's Reply at 1); Koam Produce, Inc. v. DiMare Homestead, Inc., 329 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2003) aff'g 222 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

20110408

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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