Gomez v. Seoul Gool Dae Gee Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:19-CV-01121 |
| Citation | 434 F.Supp.3d 381 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
| Parties | Esvin GOMEZ, Plaintiff, v. SEOUL GOOL DAE GEE INC., Defendant. |
Matthew Bryce Kaplan, The Kaplan Law Firm, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiff.
John Chapman Petersen, Chap Peterson & Associates, PLC, Fairfax, VA, for Defendant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
Plaintiff Esvin Gomez ("Plaintiff") is a non-English speaking individual of limited economic means and is not a U.S. citizen. For approximately five years, Plaintiff worked for Defendant Seoul Gool Dae Gee Inc. ("Defendant") in Defendant's Korean BBQ restaurant. In early 2019, Plaintiff hired attorneys Matthew Kaplan and Lenore Garon (jointly "Plaintiff's counsel") to investigate and litigate potential claims, relating to non payment of overtime wages. Plaintiff's counsel agreed to represent Plaintiff on a contingency basis and to litigate expeditiously, so that Plaintiff could return to his home country.
Between April and June of 2019, Plaintiff's counsel first discussed with Defendant their client's potential claims. During the pre-litigation negotiations that followed, two separate settlement letters were drafted. After negotiations failed, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on August 27, 2019, asserting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq. ("FLSA"). Defendant then filed an Answer on September 30, 2019. On October 3, 2019, Plaintiff accepted an offer of judgment. This Court entered the judgment against Defendant on October 24, 2019, awarding Plaintiff $6,500. On November 11, 2019, Plaintiff's counsel filed a Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs; ten days later, Defendant responded with objections to that motion. Plaintiff's reply was filed on November 27, 2019. Plaintiff seeks to recover $13,429.59 for fees incurred by attorneys Mr. Kaplan and Ms. Garon as well as $400 for costs.
The prevailing party in an FLSA case is entitled to attorneys' fees. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) ; Burnley v. Short, 730 F.2d 136, 141 (4th Cir. 1984). The amount to be awarded, however, is within the discretion of the trial court. See VanDyke v. Bluefield Gas. Co., 210 F.2d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 1954). When considering the appropriateness of attorneys' fees, a court must weigh twelve factors. Grissom v. The Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313, 320-21 (4th Cir. 2008) ; Barber v. Kimbrell's, Inc., 577 F.2d 216, 226 (4th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 934, 99 S.Ct. 329, 58 L.Ed.2d 330 (1978). These factors include:
(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 attorneys' opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for like work; (6) the attorneys' 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 the attorney and client; and (12) attorneys' fees awards in similar cases.
Barber, 577 F.2d at 226 n. 28 ; see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 n. 9, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). A court considering the Barber Factors need not mechanically list or comment on each Factor, only those that are applicable. Bergstrom v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (In re A.H. Robins Co.), 86 F.3d 364, 376 (4th Cir. 1996).
The Court finds that Factors one, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and twelve weigh in Plaintiff's favor. Each are addressed below. The remaining factors are either uncertain or inapplicable.
Beginning with Factor one, the Court finds that the time and labor expended weighs in Plaintiff's favor. This Factor is the first step in calculating the "lodestar" fee, that is "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933. The lodestar "provides an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a lawyer's services." Id. It is a "presumptively reasonable fee." Lyle v. Food Lion, Inc., 954 F.2d 984, 989 (4th Cir. 1992).
In computing reasonable hours expended, the fee applicant must reference contemporaneous billing records, while making a good faith effort to exclude excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours. See Webb v. Bd. of Educ., 471 U.S. 234, 238 n.6, 105 S.Ct. 1923, 85 L.Ed.2d 233 (1985) ; Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933. Plaintiff has supplied his litigation team's billing statements, which reflect entries specifically identifying amounts of time, tasks performed, and the costs allocated. Mr. Kaplan worked 19.933 hours; Ms. Garon worked 4.15 hours. In addition, a paralegal worked 12.25 hours. In total, Plaintiff's litigation team worked 36.3 hours on this matter.
Defendant argues the hours expended on this matter were excessive, specifically those entries relating to drafting one settlement letter. In addition, Defendant claims many entries are recorded in block billing form, a method that combines multiple tasks in one entry, thus preventing the Court from determining whether a reasonable number of hours was spent on specific tasks. However, the time credited to the specific settlement letter drafting is not excessive, but less than 2.5 hours. And an examination of the seventeen other entries Defendant claims to be block billed reveals that the entries contain a sufficient level of detail for the Court to find that they are reasonable. See Project Vote/Voting for Am. v. Long, 887 F. Supp. 2d 704, 716 (E.D. Va. 2012). Each entry cited contains elements of one individual task. By way of example, one entry for .2 hours holds the description "speaking to client" and "record notes of conversation." Having reviewed the specific time entries to which Defendant objects, the Court finds that it is able to determine the amount of time reasonably expended in this litigation. Contrary to Defendant's assertions, the record does not indicate excessive or unnecessary hours performed or billed. In short, the hours submitted are fair and reasonably necessary to the litigation.
With this determination of hours expended, the Court must then adduce a reasonable hourly rate. This component of the lodestar is determined by referencing the hourly rates in the legal community where the case is litigated. See Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 244 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273, 277 (4th Cir. 1990) ); see also Virginia-Pilot Media Companies, LLC v. Dep't of Justice, 2016 WL 4265742, at *2, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106234, at *4 (E.D. Va. August 10, 2016). To this end, courts in the Eastern District of Virginia employ the Vienna Metro matrix. Entegee, Inc. v. Metters Industries, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-499-CMH-MSN, 2018 WL 3472819, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121222 (E.D. Va. July 19, 2018) (citing Vienna Metro LLC v. Pulte Home Corp., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (E.D. Va. 2011) ); see BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Commc'ns, Inc., 234 F. Supp. 3d 760, 770-73 (E.D. Va. 2017), vacated on other grounds by 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018). The matrix's hourly rate calculation accounts for Barber "factors (3) skill required, (5) customary fee, (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney, and (12) fee awards in similar cases by providing a stable and consistent rate" for northern Virginia attorneys, "based on their skill in commercial litigation cases and years of experience." Entegee, Inc. v. Metters Industries, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-499-CMH-MSN, 2018 WL 3472819, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121222 (E.D. Va. July 19, 2018). According to the matrix, the appropriate hourly rates based on varying years of experience are as follows:
Id.; Taylor v. Republic Servs., No. 1:12-cv-00523, 2014 WL 325169, at *5, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11086, at *14 (E.D. Va. January 29, 2014) ; see Vienna Metro, LLC v. Pulte Home Corp., 786 F.Supp.2d 1090 (E.D. Va. 2011).
Plaintiff seeks fees for time logged by three individuals. The following attorneys and paralegal spent time working on the case, and their experience and hourly rates are outlined below:
The hourly rates proposed by Plaintiff's counsel are below the rates approved in Vienna Metro. Both attorneys who worked on this case have extensive experience litigating in federal courts and in employment matters. Mr. Kaplan has worked as a litigation attorney for two major national law firms, focusing his practice on complex plaintiff-side litigation in federal court, in addition to years spent working as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of State. Ms. Garon has practiced law for over four decades, including service as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. The attorneys were equipped to develop their theory and present the necessary evidence in a strategic manner, skills that ultimately allowed this matter to be resolved quickly and greatly reduced the attorney time that otherwise would have been devoted to the case.
Defendant objects to the lodestar calculation asserting that Factor 3 weighs against Plaintiff. Because the case was resolved by an offer of judgment within a few days of Defendant's Answer, no discovery was conducted, and no substantive motions were filed. Defendant argues that the skill required to properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galois, Inc. v. SP Glob.
...area. See Vienna Metro LLC v. Pulte Home Corp., 2011 WL 13369780, at *6 (E.D. Va. Aug. 24,2011); Gomez v. Seoul Gool Dae Gee Inc., 434 F.Supp.3d 381,385-86 (E.D. Va. 2020). The matrix's hourly rate calculation accounts for some of the Robinson factors including (3) skill required, (5) custo......