C.L. et al v. New York City Department of Education, No. 1:2021cv07094 - Document 50 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER: No later than December 29, 2022, Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed judgment consistent with this order and the Courts Memorandum Opinion & Order dated November 22, 2022, to which the DOE will have one week to raise any objections. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 12/19/2022) (ate)

Download PDF
C.L. et al v. New York City Department of Education Doc. 50 Case 1:21-cv-07094-RA Document 50 Filed 12/19/22 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK USDC-SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: C.L. and G.G., on behalf of their minor child, C.L.G., Plaintiffs, No. 21-cv-07094 (RA) v. ORDER NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: On September 29, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order on Plaintiffs’ application for attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter. Plaintiffs later moved for reconsideration because the Court inadvertently did not add the $402 filing fee—a cost that was awarded to Plaintiffs—to its final calculation. Defendant cross-moved for reconsideration, and Plaintiffs filed a response. On November 22, 2022, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion & Order on the cross-motions for reconsideration, denying Defendant’s motion, and granting Plaintiffs’ motion with modifications. Plaintiffs then submitted a proposed judgment pursuant to the November 22 Order, seeking reimbursement for hours billed after April 20, 2022—which is the date Plaintiffs filed their reply brief in the original fee application—and attaching time sheets that had not previously been included in the original motion for reconsideration. Defendant objects to Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment, specifically to reimbursement for the additional time sought after April 20, 2022. Having considered the parties’ arguments, the Court concludes that those billed hours, while recoverable to a certain extent, are excessive. In particular, Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-07094-RA Document 50 Filed 12/19/22 Page 2 of 2 Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration—which served to correct a simple, minor error made by the Court—could have been accomplished by way of a one-page letter, but Plaintiffs billed 9.3 hours of attorney time for that motion alone. Other entries billed in response to Defendant’s cross motion were also excessive, not limited to 4.6 hours spent reviewing time sheets and submitting a threepage proposed judgment, and multiple 0.1 entries for tasks that should not have taken more than several moments—the same type of charges for which the Court has now twice reprimanded Plaintiffs. As the Court previously noted, the Supreme Court has made clear that “the determination of fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). This is certainly true with respect to a third such litigation. The Court thus grants attorneys’ fees for time billed in the federal action after April 20, 2022, but reduces the number of hours billed. Because the initial reconsideration motion could have, as noted above, consisted of a brief letter-motion, hours billed working on that motion between September 29, 2022 and October 4, 2022 shall be reduced by 90%. The remaining hours billed after April 20, 2022, which consist primarily of Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant’s cross-motion for reconsideration, are reduced by 50%, for the same reasons articulated in the Court’s November 22nd Memorandum Opinion & Order, as well as above. No later than December 29, 2022, Plaintiffs shall submit a proposed judgment consistent with this order and the Court’s Memorandum Opinion & Order dated November 22, 2022, to which the DOE will have one week to raise any objections. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 19, 2022 New York, New York Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge 2

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.