Peguero-Moronta, et al v. Santiago, et al, No. 3:2001cv01390 - Document 256 (D.P.R. 2010)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: NOTED and MOOT 253 MOTION Requesting Remedy, 255 Second MOTION requesting Order; GRANTING 254 MOTION for voluntary reduction; GRANTING IN PART 244 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Litigation Expenses. We award Plaintiffs $372,490.73 in attorney's fees and $13,346.91 in costs and out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $385,837.64. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 4/8/2010.(mrj)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO MIGUELINA PEGUERO-MORONTA, et al., Civil No. 01-1390 (JAF) Plaintiffs, v. CARLOS GABRIEL-SANTIAGO, et al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER 17 Plaintiffs, as prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, move for attorney s fees under 18 § 1988 and for costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). (Docket No. 244.) They 19 also move to reduce that fee request, responding to this court s finding in Diffenderfer v. 20 Gómez-Colón, 606 F. Supp. 2d 222, 229 (D.P.R. 2009), aff d, 587 F.3d 445, 455-56 (1st Cir. 21 2009), that billing a quarter hour for completing a menial task is an unreasonable billing 22 practice. (Docket No. 254.) Defendants oppose neither motion. 23 I. 24 Standard of Review 25 In order to award attorney s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, or costs under Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 54(d), a court first must determine that the requesting party is prevailing. 27 A party is found prevailing where it succeeded on an important issue in the case, thereby Civil No. 01-1390 (JAF) -2- 1 gaining at least some of the benefit he sought in bringing suit. See Gay Officers Action 2 League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 293 (1st Cir. 2001) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 3 424, 433 (1983)). Status as a prevailing party may be denied where the party s success was 4 purely technical or de minimis. Id. at 294 (quoting Tex. State Teachers Ass n v. Garland 5 Indep. Sch. Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 792 (1989)). 6 Next, the court must determine that the requested fees are reasonable. § 1988. It must 7 do so even where no one opposes the requested award. Wojkowski v. Cade, 725 F.2d 127, 130 8 (1st Cir. 1984). Fees are presumptively reasonable where the requesting party has multiplied 9 a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours reasonably spent on litigation. See Gay 10 Officers Action League, 247 F.3d at 295 (citing Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433). A reasonable hourly 11 rate is the rate prevailing in the relevant community, taking into account the qualifications, 12 experience, and specialized competence of the attorneys involved. Id. at 295. And the logged 13 hours are reasonably spent on litigation unless duplicative, unproductive, or excessive. Id. 14 Finally, the court must determine that the requested costs fall into the categories 15 enumerated at 28 U.S.C. § 1920. In re Two Appeals Arising Out of San Juan Dupont Plaza 16 Hotel Fire Litig., 994 F.2d 956, 962-63 (1st Cir. 1993). Some commonly claimed expenses are 17 properly denied as costs, when outside the § 1920 categories, but properly awarded as out-of- 18 pocket expenses subsumed under statutorily allowed attorney s fees. See, e.g., Attrezzi, LLC 19 v. Maytag Corp., 436 F.3d 32, 43 (1st Cir. 2006) (citing Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 707 F.2d 636, 20 637 (1st Cir. 1983)). Civil No. 01-1390 (JAF) -3- 1 II. 2 Analysis 3 A. Prevailing Parties 4 In April 2001, Plaintiffs sued Defendants, Carlos Gabriel-Santiago, in his personal and 5 official capacities, and Susana Hernández, in her personal capacity, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for 6 violating their First Amendment rights when Defendants fired them on the basis of their 7 political affiliation. (Docket No. 244 at 5.) Plaintiffs suffered their only loss when this court 8 dismissed their claim against Gabriel-Santiago in his official capacity, on sovereign immunity 9 grounds. (See id. at 5-6.) On all other claims, Plaintiffs were ultimately successful; a jury 10 awarded them compensatory and punitive damages and this court awarded them the equitable 11 remedy of reinstatement. (Id.) We, therefore, find Plaintiffs prevailing, see Gay Officers 12 Action League, 247 F.3d at 293, and, thus, eligible to collect attorney s fees under § 1988 and 13 costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d). 14 B. Attorney s Fees 15 1. 16 Plaintiffs submit a time sheet documenting the work of seven attorneys. (Docket 17 No. 244-2.) Each attorney bills one rate for in-court time and another for out-of-court time.1 1 Hourly Rates Plaintiffs attorneys request the following rates; the first number for each represents dollars charged per hour for in-court time, and the second represents dollars per hour for out-of-court time: Eliezer Aldarondo-Ortiz 310/285; Pablo Landrau-Pirazzi 310/285; Claudio Aliff-Ortiz 230/210; Iván Castro-Ortiz 210/190; Michael Craig McCall 205/185; Sheila Torres-Delgado 160/140; Eliezer A. Aldarondo-López 150/130. Civil No. 01-1390 (JAF) -4- 1 (Id. at 26-27.) To justify the rates charged, Plaintiffs submit a listing of cases in which the 2 attorneys firm has participated (Docket No. 244-3); each attorney s resumé (Docket Nos. 244-4 3 to -10); orders from this court awarding similar rates for these or similar attorneys in similar 4 cases (Docket Nos. 244-11 to -13; -15; -16 at 25-33; -17); and similar fee requests granted by 5 this court (Docket Nos. 244-14; -16 at 1-24). 6 Included among the Plaintiffs submission of earlier awards of this court is a decision 7 from April 2009 in which we awarded these same attorneys, except Pablo Landrau-Pirazzi, the 8 same rate that they now claim for the case at hand. (See Docket No. 244-17.) We see no reason 9 to distinguish between the rates awarded there and the rates currently requested. Further, 10 Plaintiffs submissions show that Landrau routinely is awarded rates equaling those of Eliezer 11 Aldarondo-Ortiz. (See Docket Nos. 244-11 to -14.) We, thus, award the rates as requested, 12 though we include an across-the-board reduction of four percent to account for the inflation of 13 properly awarded rates during the 8.5 years spent on litigation in this case.2 14 2. 15 Plaintiffs time sheet lists each hour, or portion of an hour, logged by their attorneys on Hours Spent on Litigation 16 this case. 17 documented in the time sheet was necessarily incurred in this action and that the services for 18 which fees have been charged were correctly and necessarily performed. (Id. at 27-28.) 2 (Docket No. 244-2.) Every attorney, except Landrau, attests that the time To calculate this rate reduction, we found the average rate properly charged over the past 8.5 years, using as a starting point the $280 per hour awarded Aldarondo-Ortiz in 2002 (see Docket No. 244-11) and as an ending point the $310 per hour awarded him herein. That average rate represents approximately a four-percent reduction from the rate currently awarded. Civil No. 01-1390 (JAF) -5- 1 Plaintiffs also submit a second time sheet; its entries replace those on the first time sheet for 2 tasks deemed menial all those for which a quarter hour originally was logged and instead 3 log a tenth hour for each. (See Docket No. 254.) In addition, Plaintiffs submit orders of this 4 court analyzing the reasonableness of the hours logged by like attorneys in like cases. (See 5 Docket Nos. 244-11 to -13; -15; -16 at 25-33; -17.) 6 We accept Plaintiffs submission voluntarily categorizing as menial those tasks for which 7 a quarter hour originally was billed, and we, accordingly, accept their reduction of the time 8 logged for those tasks. Upon review of the first time sheet, we find that the attorneys in some 9 instances logged excessive time in that the listed tasks clearly would not have taken the time 10 logged to complete. (See, e.g., Docket No. 244-2 at 9 (billing half hour to read a line order and 11 forty-five minutes to read a one-page order), 12 (billing half hour each to read a one-page order 12 and a line order), 13 (billing half hour to read a line order), 15 (billing one hour to read two-and- 13 a-half pages of text), 16 (billing one hour to read a two-page judgment).) Because the time 14 sheet in this case spans 8.5 years of litigation, we exercise our discretion to reduce fees for this 15 evident practice of over-billing across the board, instead of by individual time entry. See, e.g., 16 Jacobs v. Mancuso, 825 F.2d 559, 562 (1st Cir. 1987) (refusing to require court to complete 17 hour-by-hour analysis given a voluminous fee request); Diffenderfer, 606 F. Supp. 2d at 230-31 18 (finding percentage reduction appropriate given lengthy fee request). We, thus, reduce the 19 requested attorney s fees by ten percent. We otherwise find the hours logged reasonable and 20 accept the attorneys attestation that they were necessarily spent on this litigation. Civil No. 01-1390 (JAF) -6- 1 3. 2 In accordance with the foregoing, we reduce Plaintiffs original request for attorney s 3 fees, $439,021.50 (Docket No. 244-2 at 27), by the amount of their voluntary reduction, 4 $5,892.75 (Docket No. 254-2 at 5). We further reduce by fourteen percent, to account for rate 5 inflation and excessive billing and, therefore, award $372,490.73 in attorney s fees. 6 C. Calculation of Attorney s Fees Costs and Out-of-Pocket Expenses 7 Plaintiffs submit a listing of expenses they incurred in this case, and Aldarondo-Ortiz 8 attests that each expense was actually and necessarily incurred in this action. (Docket 9 No. 244-19.) Plaintiffs also submit receipts, invoices, and credit-card statements for the most 10 part marked with this case name or number which together show that Plaintiffs actually 11 incurred each listed expense. (Docket No. 244-18.) 12 Plaintiffs claim as costs $405 in filing fees; $100 in service of summons; $840.24 in 13 photocopies; $4,091.97 in transcriptions of depositions and trial testimony; and $2,815.25 in 14 translation and interpreter services. (Docket No. 244-19.) If they were necessarily incurred in 15 this matter, we may properly award these as costs. See § 1920; see also Riofrío Anda v. Ralston 16 Purina Co., 772 F. Supp. 46, 55 (D.P.R. 1991) (explaining court s extension of § 1920(1) to 17 allow recovery of cost of private process server). Plaintiffs further claim $164.67 in messenger 18 services; $427.13 in postage; and $4,502.65 in attorneys travel and accommodations. (Docket 19 No. 244-19.) If they were necessarily incurred in this matter, we may properly award these as 20 out-of-pocket expenses. See, e.g., Palmigiano, 707 F.2d at 637 (rejecting argument that attorney Civil No. 01-1390 -7- 1 travel and accommodation expenses are not recoverable as attorney s fees under § 1988); Zayas 2 v. Puerto Rico, 451 F. Supp. 2d 310, 319 (D.P.R. 2006) (categorizing messenger services and 3 postage as out-of-pocket expenses). 4 We deem the documentation submitted adequate to show that these expenses were 5 necessarily and actually incurred in this matter. We, thus, find Plaintiffs entitled to recover 6 these as costs under Rule 54(d) and as out-of-pocket expenses allowed as attorney s fees under 7 § 1988, and we award same as requested, in the amount of $13,346.91 (Docket No. 244-19). 8 IV. 9 Conclusion 10 We hereby GRANT IN PART Plaintiffs motion for attorney s fees (Docket No. 244) 11 and GRANT Plaintiffs motion for voluntary reduction (Docket No. 254). We award Plaintiffs 12 $372,490.73 in attorney s fees and $13,346.91 in costs and out-of-pocket expenses, for a total 13 of $385,837.64. We note and find MOOT Plaintiffs motions requesting remedy (Docket 14 Nos. 253; 255). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8 th day of April, 2010. 17 18 19 s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE Chief U.S. District Judge

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.