<\/p>\n
On May 22, 2013, the United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants Gristede\u2019s Operating Corp.\u2019s appeal from District Judge Paul A. Crotty\u2019s award of $3,415,450 in attorneys\u2019 fees and $442,609.85 in costs to plaintiffs after the parties entered into a $3,530,000 settlement on the eve of trial.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Defendants argued that the district court did not adequately review plaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u2019s billing records, inappropriately relied upon defendants\u2019 litigation tactics to determine the fee, and awarded fees and costs that were disproportionate to the settlement.\u00a0 <\/span>As such, defendants argued, the district court had \u201cabused its discretion,\u201d and that its judgment should be vacated.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n In a summary order, the Court of Appeals rejected each argument in turn.\u00a0 <\/span>First, the Court explained that the district court is not expected to achieve \u201cauditing perfection,\u201d or become \u201cgreen-eyeshade accountants,\u201d but to \u201cdo rough justice.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>Order at p. 5-6.\u00a0 <\/span>Second, the district court did not punish the defendants for exercising their right to vigorously defend the case, but only acknowledged their \u201cvigorous approach\u201d as an explanation for why plaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u2019s fees were so high.\u00a0 <\/span>Id. at 7.\u00a0 <\/span>Finally, the Court noted that \u201cthe most critical factor in determining the reasonableness of a fee award is the degree of success obtained,\u201d not proportionality to the settlement amount.\u00a0 <\/span>Id. at 8 (internal citations omitted).\u00a0 <\/span>Because plaintiffs\u2019 counsel had obtained a \u201csignificant monetary recovery\u201d for their clients, the award was not an abuse of discretion.\u00a0 <\/span>Furthermore, the Court said, \u201calthough the district court was permitted<\/span> to cap the fee request at standard contingency-fee levels, it was not required<\/span> to do so where, as here, it concluded that higher fees were reasonably incurred.\u201d\u00a0 <\/span>Id. at 9 (emphasis in original).<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n After seven years of litigation, the Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Crotty\u2019s ruling that plaintiffs\u2019 requested attorneys\u2019 fees and costs were reasonable under the circumstances.\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\nOn May 22, 2013, the United State Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied defendants Gristede\u2019s Operating Corp.\u2019s appeal from District Judge Paul A. Crotty\u2019s award of $3,415,450 in attorneys\u2019 fees and $442,609.85 in costs to plaintiffs after the parties entered into a $3,530,000 settlement on the eve of trial.\u00a0
\nDefendants argued that the district court did not adequately review plaintiffs\u2019 counsel\u2019s billing records, inappropriately relied upon defendants\u2019 litigation tactics to determine the fee, and awarded fees …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[23,1,22,24,27,21,34],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-action","category-employment-law","category-flsa-2","category-minimum-wage-2","category-ny-labor-law","category-overtime-2","category-unpaid-wages-2"],"yoast_head":"\n