McFarlane v. Harry's Nurses Registry
| Decision Date | 28 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | 17-CV-6350 (PKC) (PK) |
| Parties | MARJORIE MCFARLANE, VELMA PALMER, and CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. HARRY'S NURSES REGISTRY, HARRY'S HOMECARE, INC., and HARRY DORVILIER, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiffs Marjorie McFarlane, Velma Palmer, and Claire Williams brought this action against Defendants Harry's Nurses Registry and Harry's HomeCare, Inc. (collectively, the "Corporate Defendants") and Harry Dorvilier for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). On April 2, 2020, the Court determined that Defendants were liable to Plaintiffs for unpaid wages, overtime pay, and liquidated damages under the FLSA and NYLL. McFarlane v. Harry's Nurses Registry (McFarlane I), 2020 WL 1643781, at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020). On December 7, 2020, the Court determined that Plaintiffs were entitled to damages in a total amount of $59,587. McFarlane v. Harry's Nurses Registry (McFarlane II), 2020 WL 7186791, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2020). Now before the Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for attorneys' fees of $60,625 and costs of $460.50. (See Declaration of Nina A. Ovrutsky in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs ("Ovrutsky Decl."), Dkt. 74-1, ¶¶ 36-38.)1 As discussed below, the Court partially grants Plaintiffs' motion, and awards fees of $35,793.75 and costs of $460.50.
The facts of this case are discussed in detail in the Court's prior orders and need not be recounted fully here. See McFarlane I, 2020 WL 1643781, at *1-4; McFarlane II, 2020 WL 7186791, at *1-2. In short, Plaintiffs are Licensed Practical Nurses ("LPNs") who were employed by Harry's Nurses Registry ("Harry's Nurses"), which also does business as Harry's HomeCare, Inc. McFarlane I, 2020 WL 1643781, at *1; McFarlane II, 2020 WL 7186791, at *1. Defendant Dorvilier is the sole owner of Harry's Nurses. McFarlane I, 2020 WL 1643781, at *1; McFarlane II, 2020 WL 7186791, at *1. Between February 2016 and mid-November 2017, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs certain wages and proper overtime compensation. See McFarlane I, 2020 WL 1643781, at *2-3, *8-11; McFarlane II, 2020 WL 7186791, at *1.
On November 1, 2017, Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a complaint against Defendants. (Complaint, Dkt. 1.) Defendants were initially represented by counsel, but defense counsel was allowed to withdraw in April 2018 after "a breakdown in communication and understanding" between counsel and Defendant Dorvilier. (See Affidavit of Michael K. Chong, Esq., Dkt. 16-1, ¶ 2; 4/6/2018 Minute Entry.) Thereafter, Dorvilier continued to proceed pro se, while the Corporate Defendants failed to retain new counsel despite multiple court warnings that they could not proceed without counsel. (See 4/6/2018 Minute Entry; 6/19/2018 Minute Entry; 8/8/2018 Minute Entry; 11/2/2018 Minute Entry.)
On June 19, 2018, the Court decided that the case must proceed to discovery and ordered the parties to exchange initial discovery requests by July 19, 2018, respond to discovery requests by August 20, 2018, and complete discovery by October 19, 2018. (6/19/2018 Minute Entry.) Defendant Dorvilier, however, was uncooperative in the discovery process and refused to comply with Plaintiffs' discovery requests, requiring Plaintiffs' counsel to seek court intervention on multiple occasions. To start, the Court extended the discovery deadlines on August 8, 2018, after Defendant Dorvilier failed to serve initial discovery requests. (See 8/8/2018 Minute Entry.) Then, on November 2, 2018, the Court held a motion hearing on whether to sanction Defendant Dorvilier based on his continued failure to participate in discovery and his refusal at the last minute to proceed with his scheduled October 11, 2018 deposition. (See 11/2/2018 Minute Entry; Dkts. 27-28.) At the hearing, the Court directed the parties to schedule depositions for the first week of December and certify the close of discovery by December 21, 2018. (11/2/2018 Minute Entry.) Yet, Defendant Dorvilier continued to fail to comply with discovery requests, and on December 11, 2018, the Court issued an order reminding Dorvilier "of his obligation to comply with the Court's order to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests." (See Dkt. 31; 12/11/2018 Docket Order.) On December 27, 2018, the Court ordered the parties to show cause for their failure to certify the close of discovery by the December 21 deadline. (12/27/2018 Docket Order.) Plaintiffs filed a response on January 8, 2019. (Dkt. 35.) On January 18, 2019, the Court held a hearing and granted Defendant Dorvilier "one last chance to comply fully with his discovery obligations" by February 1, 2019. (1/18/2019 Minute Entry.) After Defendant Dorvilier failed to do so, the Court allowed Plaintiffs to file a motion for sanctions (see Dkt. 38; 2/6/2019 Docket Order), briefing of which finished on April 15, 2019 (see Dkts. 39-45; see also 2/27/2019 Docket Order; 3/22/2019 Docket Order).
On May 9, 2019, Plaintiffs requested a Certificate of Default as to the Corporate Defendants, which had failed to appear with new counsel. (Dkt. 46.) After the Clerk of Court entered a Certificate of Default, Plaintiffs moved for default judgment, which the Corporate Defendants did not oppose. (See Dkts. 47-49.) By Order dated May 16, 2019, the Court deferred ruling on the motion for default judgment until the case against Defendant Dorvilier was resolved. Plaintiffs then moved for summary judgment as to Dorvilier. (See Dkts. 52, 58.) Briefing on the summary judgment motion finished on September 25, 2019. (See Dkts. 58-60.)
On April 2, 2020, the Court partially granted Plaintiffs' motions for default judgment and for summary judgment. McFarlane I, 2020 WL 1643781, at *18. In particular, the Court granted Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion as to Defendant Dorvilier's liability under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid wages, overtime pay, and liquidated damages. Id. The Court also granted Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against the Corporate Defendants with respect to liability for unpaid wages, overtime pay, and liquidated damages under the FLSA and NYLL. Id. The Court denied summary judgment on the issue of damages as to Defendant Dorvilier, and deferred awarding damages as to the Corporate Defendants, because Plaintiffs had based their damages claim on a regular hourly pay rate of $25, and the Court found that there was a genuine factual dispute regarding whether Plaintiffs were entitled to be paid at such a rate. Id. at *12, *18. Nevertheless, finding "no dispute that [Plaintiffs] were, in fact, regularly paid at the hourly rate of $19.00 starting in February 2016," id. at *9, the Court "encourage[d] Plaintiffs to consider pursuing, via a supplemental summary judgment motion, damages using a regular rate of pay of $19.00/hour and overtime rate of $28.50/hour, rather than proceeding to trial on damages," id. at *19.
Plaintiffs subsequently did so. (Dkt. 66.) Defendant Dorvilier did not respond to Plaintiffs' motion (see 8/26/2020 Docket Order), despite a sua sponte extension of time in which to do so (see 7/8/2020 Docket Order).
On December 7, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs' supplemental motion for summary judgment and awarded them damages totaling $59,587—representing $2,164.16 in unpaid wages and overtime pay plus $2,164.16 in liquidated damages for Plaintiff McFarlane; $18,522.66 in unpaid wages and overtime pay plus $18,522.66 in liquidated damages for Plaintiff Palmer; and $9,106.68 in unpaid wages and overtime pay plus $9,106.68 in liquidated damages for Plaintiff Williams.2 McFarlane II, 2020 WL 7186791, at *4. Because Plaintiffs had not provided evidence of their attorneys' fees and costs, the Court deferred awarding such fees and costs, and set a deadline for Plaintiffs to submit proof of their fees and costs. Id. Subsequently, Plaintiffs stipulated to voluntary dismissal of all outstanding claims against Defendants (Dkt. 71), and judgment was entered on January 8, 2021 (see 1/7/2021 Docket Order; Dkt. 72).
Plaintiffs now move for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. (Notice of Motion, Dkt. 74.) Along with their motion, Plaintiffs have submitted their attorneys' timesheets and proof of costs. (See Dkts. 74-3, 74-4, and 74-5.) Defendants have not opposed the motion, even though the Court sua sponte granted Defendants an extension of time in which to do so. (See 3/12/2021 Docket Order.)
Plaintiffs seek fees of $60,625 for 148 total hours of work by their attorneys. (See Ovrutsky Decl., Dkt. 74-1, ¶¶ 28-36, 38; see also Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs ( ), Dkt. 74-2, at 6.) In the alternative, Plaintiffs requestfees of $19,862.33, which represents 33.3% of the total damages awarded to them. (Pls.' Mem., Dkt. 74-2, at 6.) Plaintiffs request $460.50 for costs related to Defendant Dorvilier's deposition. (See Ovrutsky Decl., Dkt. 74-1, ¶ 37; Proof of Costs, Dkt. 74-5.)
Both the FLSA and NYLL "allow for an award of 'reasonable' attorney's fees." Santillan v. Henao, 822 F. Supp. 2d 284, 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(1)). "[T]he lodestar—the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the case—creates a 'presumptively reasonable fee.'" Millea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass'n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 183 (2d Cir. 2008)). "District courts have broad discretion, using their experience with the case, as well as their experience with the practice of law, to assess the reasonableness of each component of a fee award." Gunawan v. Sake Sushi Rest., 897 F. Supp. 2d 76, 94 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The party seeking an award of fees has the...
To continue reading
Request your trial