Jackson et al v. Estelle Place, LLC et al, No. 1:2008cv00984 - Document 56 (E.D. Va. 2009)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: Motion/Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 5/8/09. (tfitz, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA FOR THE H".-' Alexandria Division TANYA JACKSON, '' ¢ et Plaintiffs, ) cu ) V. ESTELLE ) ) PLACE, LLC, et al.. l:08cv984 (LMB/TRJ) ) ) MEMORANDUM Before the Court is Fees No. ) Defendants. Attorneys' ; and Costs OPINION the plaintiffs' [42] of $86,471.00 in attorneys' Petition for Award of in which plaintiffs seek an award fees and $1,710.94 for the costs incurred in litigating and settling this civil action. Defendants have opposed the amount sought, excessive and unreasonable. For the following reasons, plaintiffs will be awarded $36,000.00 $407.73 I. in attorneys' it is the fees and in costs. Background Plaintiffs Tanya Jackson, Isaac Asare, Sharon Doss, Michael Agyeman, 2 01, et seq., defendants, Thomas George, and Courtney Collins brought this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act §§ arguing that ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. to recover overtime wages owed to them by the Estelle Place LLC, Destiny Place LLC, Jireh Place LLC, Debra Roundtree, Our Place LLC, and Mary Bell. Defendants are providers of group home services to disabled persons. Although each group home was managed by a different limited liability corporation, litigation, for the purposes of settling this the defendants agreed to include all of the hours worked by the plaintiffs for the various defendants in determining appropriate compensation under the FLSA. also agreed to characterize one plaintiff, employee to whom overtime wages The Complaint, Agyeman, as an exempt were due. which also included claims of breach of contract and quantum meruit, was filed on September 22, Defendants did not file a motion to dismiss. 2008, Defendants 2008. On December 5, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Allow Notice to Similarly Situated Employees, which the defendants opposed. Court granted the plaintiffs' After the motion on December 19, 2008, the parties requested a stay of the proceedings while they negotiated a settlement of the claims. The parties reached a confidential settlement before any extensive discovery or motions practice had to been conducted. claims, The settlement resolved the plaintiffs' except for the issue of attorneys' the parties agreed to submit to the Court. approved on February 23, II. fees and costs, FLSA which The settlement was 2009. Discussion Pursuant to the FLSA, a prevailing party is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' § 216(b). fees and costs. See 29 U.S.C. Because the parties have agreed that plaintiffs are the prevailing parties under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), the plaintiffs are entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' However, fees and costs. plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that and costs they seek are reasonable. F.2d 273, 277 (4th Cir. See Plyler v. the fees Evatt. 902 1990). In arriving at a reasonable attorneys' fee, the Court first must determine the lodestar figure by multiplying the number of reasonable hours expended times a reasonable hourly rate. Robinson v. 2009). Equifax Info. Servs.. 243 {4th Cir. In determining the number of reasonable hours expended and a reasonable hourly rate, factors set out in Barber v. Barber v. 1978). 560 F.3d 235, See Kimbrell's Inc.. These Kimbrell the Court considers Kimbrell's Inc. 577 F.2d 216, Id.; 226 n.28 the twelve see also (4th Cir. factors are: (1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney's opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorney's expectations at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; similar cases. 577 F.2d at 226 n.28. and (12) attorneys' fees awards in After deducting any fees from time spent on unsuccessful claims, that resulted the Court evaluates the "degree of success enjoyed by the plaintiff" and arrives at a final 313, reasonable 321 fee. (4th Cir. See 2008) Grissom v. The Mills Corp.. 54 9 F.3d (internal quotations and citations omitted). A. Reasonable Plaintiffs were Employment Law Group, attorneys' fees principals, Hourly Rate represented in P.C. for 362.3 an associate, investigator. this of Washington, hours lawsuit by The DC and seek an award of of work performed by two a legal assistant, and a private The hourly rates billed were: $410 for principals Nicholas Woodfield and Robert Scott Oswald, attorneys who each have between 11 and 19 years of experience, $225 with 1 to 3 years of experience, and $13 0 for an associate for work performed by a legal assistant and a private investigator. seek fees. $86,471.00 in attorneys' In total, plaintiffs Plaintiffs have the burden of proving that the hourly rate sought by each of 560 F.3d at their attorneys 243-45. To meet is reasonable. this burden, See Robinson. plaintiffs must provide not only affidavits of their own attorneys, but also "specific evidence of the prevailing market rates in the relevant community for the type of work for which (quoting Plvler. 902 F.2d at Plaintiffs support [they] seek[] an award." Id. 277). their contention that the hourly rates they seek are consistent with the prevailing market rates district with the affidavits of Mr. in this Woodfield and two well- respected employment lawyers who practice in the Eastern District of Virginia, Ms. Patricia Smith and Elaine Charlson Bredehoft. Smith and Ms. Both Bredehoft stated that they believed The Employment Law Group, P.C. was charging the prevailing market rate for lawyers with the same amount of experience as Mr. Woodfield and Mr. Oswald. well of that of Mr. However, Woodfield, upon the Laffey Matrix, both of those affidavits, as consistently refer to and rely which the Fourth Circuit has held is not sufficient evidence of the prevailing rates in Northern Virginia. See Grissom. 549 In response, F.3d at 323. the defendants argue that the rates charged by The Employment Law Group exceed the prevailing market rate in the Eastern District of Virginia. defendants This argument is meritorious. correctly contend that the Laffey Matrix, developed in the District of Columbia, See Grissom. 549 F.3d at 323. also provide the affidavits of Edward Rosenthal, counsel, and Edward Lee Isler, Virginia employment lawyer, which was does not accurately reflect the prevailing rates in Northern Virginia, case was litigated. The where this Defendants lead defense an extremely experienced Northern both of which provide strong support for the conclusion that prevailing hourly rates in this district are significantly less than the hourly rates plaintiffs' charged in this civil action. counsel Of particular significance is the hourly rate generally charged by lead defense counsel Edward Rosenthal, founder and managing partner of Dzubin & Kroeger, recognized as LLP, "one of a law firm which plaintiffs' the preeminent District of Virginia. Mr. Rosenthal, per hour, case. See Mem. Oswald, although he He also avers avers of in his rate counsel Pet. 11, $325 per hour experience, twice 15. than either Mr. regularly charges to Manitta in the Eastern of Plfs.' experience that he reduced that that, law firms" in Supp. who has more years Woodfield and Mr. Rich Rosenthal attorneys $375 for this in the Eastern District of Virginia with experience and competence equivalent $275 to that of Mr. Woodfield and Mr. and $350 per hour for similar cases, three years of hour, Oswald charge between associates with one experience are normally billed at $165 and legal assistants $80 an hour. In fact, assistants at $55 Mr. to $195 to an are usually billed at between $50 and Rosenthal's law firm bills legal an hour. After carefully reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that the rates requested by the plaintiffs do not reflect the prevailing market rates Virginia. As in the Eastern District of the Fourth Circuit has recently noted, Matrix does not control the Laffey in the Eastern District of Virginia, and plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing "that the Laffev Matrix ... is a reliable indicator of the hourly rates of litigation attorneys in Robinson. 560 [Alexandria], F.3d at 245 Virginia. (quoting Grissom, ..." See 549 F.3d at 323). Moreover, courts in this district have repeatedly recognized that hourly rates charged in Washington, hourly rates e.g., Va. Am. are usually higher than charged in the Eastern District of Virginia. Canoe Ass'n v. 2001). D.C. Furthermore, EPA, 138 F. Supp. 2d 722, 740-42 See, (E.D. the affidavits provided by the plaintiffs conflict with the affidavits provided by the defendants as to what constitutes experienced attorneys, district. rates the prevailing market associates, For these reasons, and legal assistants rates for in this the Court finds that the hourly suggested by the defendants more accurately reflect the prevailing market rates in Northern Virginia and will reduce the hourly rate to $350 the associate, not and $60 award any fees B. to for Mr. Woodfield and Mr. for the legal assistant. for the private Oswald, $170 for The Court will investigator.1 Reasonable Number of Hours Expended Plaintiffs seek reimbursement for a total of 362.3 hours expended by the attorneys and staff of The Employment Law Group, P.C. This figure is compromised of 123.9 hours of work performed by Mr. Woodfield, 11.5 hours performed by Mr. performed by associate Katie Araus, Oswald, 16.3 hours 91.9 hours performed by a 1 Although the defendants did not dispute the hourly rate for the private investigator, hourly rate is unreasonable. the Court has not determined what reasonable because this entire fee is Given the broad discovery tools available in civil litigation, the need for an investigator is highly questionable and in this Court's experience has not been sought by a civil litigant in a fee petition. legal assistant, investigator. sum of AAC, and 106.0 hours performed by a private Plaintiffs have also requested reimbursement for a 9.1 hours billed by unidentified persons with the initials DLS, and JMZ.2 Defendants argue that the hours expended on this litigation were excessive considering the type and size of plaintiffs' claims and ask that these hours be significantly reduced because they were unnecessary and unwarranted. The defendants contend that plaintiffs should have sought an early settlement given the modest monetary claims at issue. of hours that plaintiffs They also object to the number incurred early in the litigation by preparing discovery requests even before an initial pretrial conference was held, and they also specifically challenge seven categories of fees as unreasonable, the successful 1) claims. unnecessary, These categories include or unrelated to charges for: work performed to evaluate the claims before plaintiffs' counsel agreed to be retained, plaintiffs and defendants, issues, 3) 2) background checks run on legal research into retaliation which were not alleged in the Complaint, research unrelated to the FLSA claims, meetings, 6) 5) 4) other case evaluation time spent on efforts to recruit other potential 2 The award will not include the hours billed by these three individuals because the plaintiffs did not provide any information about the qualifications or experience of these individuals, and, therefore, the Court is unable to determine a reasonable hourly rate for these individuals. 8 plaintiffs, who did not join the lawsuit, appears duplicative or lacks its relevance Hours to the 424, civil action. that are excessive, 433-34 work that sufficient description to evaluate redundant, not be included in a fee award. U.S. and 7) (1983). or unnecessary should See Hensley v. In addition, client are one's to statutory authority." Id. should not be awarded for hours that Furthermore, fees . . 461 that are not properly billed to one's adversary pursuant . "hours Eckerhart, not properly billed to are duplicative or where it is unclear why the hours were expended. The defendants' First, the fees seven specific objections have merit. charged for running background checks on the parties and performing additional research on the defendants were unnecessary to litigate the FLSA claims, reasonably expended. Second, the evaluation meeting on July 18, redundant. At this meeting, "to evaluate the merits" of fees and, thus, were not related to case the 2008 were also unnecessary and six attorneys billed 1.5 hours each the plaintiffs' relatively straightforward FLSA claims claims. These did not require such a meeting or the hours spent preparing for it. Third, the fees related to The Employment Law Group's examination of the plaintiffs' claims before the Group was retained will not be included because a private client would not be charged for those expenses. See Hensley. 461 U.S. at 433-34. Finally, fees that the attorneys billed for time spent researching a retaliation claim and trying to recruit other plaintiffs will not be awarded because no retaliation claim was alleged in the Complaint and additional plaintiffs did not join the lawsuit. These reductions reduce the total number of hours reasonably expended from 123.9 to 109.7 Oswald, to hours for Mr. from 16.3 Woodfield, to 7.4 hours 89.7 hours for the from 11.5 to 7.9 hours for the associate, legal assistant. for Mr. and from 91.9 The hours expended by the three unidentified individuals will not be awarded. Only one of the Kimbrell the results obtained," The time and labor expended, perform the legal the experience, factors, requires services, reputation, "the amount involved and further adjustment of the skill required the customary fee and ability of adequately accounted for in the hourly rate plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' litigating employment attorneys have law cases, the fee. to properly for like work, the attorney are and hours and all awarded to significant experience but this civil action did not present particularly challenging legal or factual questions. Moreover, nothing about the relatively straightforward FLSA claims presented by plaintiffs and the Court requires the this further adjustment based on the attorneys' opportunity costs, litigation, litigation before time the attorneys' limitations case within the legal expectations at the outset of imposed, community. 10 or the undesirability of Finally, neither plaintiffs' attorneys' nor attorneys' one time representation of the plaintiffs fee awards in similar cases support increasing or decreasing the award.3 Lastly, the Court has considered the amount involved and the results obtained in evaluating the reasonableness of See Farrar v. critical *is Hobby. factor' the degree of plaintiffs 506 U.S. 103, 114 (1992) the fees. {"MT]he most in determining the reasonableness of a success joined this obtained.'"). In the end, fee award only six lawsuit and their total recovery was less than $10,000 before being doubled under the liquidated damage provision of for less the FLSA. than $1,000 Moreover, of the six awards, four were before doubling as plaintiff Agyeman received the largest recovery because of the misclassification. An attorneys' fee should bear some reasonable relationship to the recovery of plaintiffs. plaintiffs' claims, Given the modest value of the Court will further reduce the to the lodestar figure by approximately 25 percent to $36,000.00. For these reasons, figure of $36,000.00 subtract fees the Court determines is reasonable. It incurred for unsuccessful, 3 Plaintiffs cite to attorneys' two other FLSA actions that a lodestar is unnecessary to unrelated claims or to fee awards they received in in this district to support their Petition. However, plaintiffs do not provide any information about the nature of those claims or the amount of discovery or motions practice conducted in those actions. Therefore, it is impossible for the Court to satisfactorily compare those awards with the award in this case. 11 award only a percentage of all of Aiken. their claims 549 C. 337 (4th Cir. Cf. the plaintiffs in costs. not alleged, request that these expenditures legal for meetings with clients. objections have merit. or unnecessary for the D. will be Financial Position of claims. For these to Plaintiffs' issue of the defendants' these Defendants." fees requested Mem. memorandum did not in Resp. reasons, exhibits 21. Petition, financial position "threaten[] to Although the inability to pay, included the defendants' information and asked the Court the specifically request a reduction the award based on the defendants' circumstances. either unrelated to the Defendants and observed that the attorneys' attached as the defendants' These expenses were successful for awarded. defendants raised the defendants' these with potential and mileage All of In their Memorandum in Response bankrupt $1,303.21 of research on the retaliation claim that meal expenses unnecessary meetings only $407.73 they be awarded resulted from unnecessary plaintiffs who did not join the lawsuit, letters City of 2002). The defendants oppose arguing that background checks, of Johnson v. settled Costs $1,710.94 was amount because plaintiffs for full value. F.3d 333, Finally, costs, this the financial for leniency or to consider their The financial position of 12 the defendants is not one of the factors attorneys' fee. Accordingly, III. the to be See, considered in arriving at e.g., Grissom. 549 P.3d at a reasonable 321. fee will not be further reduced. Conclusion For all $36,000.00 these reasons, in attorneys' the Court finds fees and $4 07.73 that a total award of in costs is reasonable and will be awarded by an Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion. Entered this Alexandria, Q day of May, 2009. Virginia /s/ Leonie M. Brinkema United States District Judge 13
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
