Ortiz v. City of N.Y. - No. 15cv2206(DLC), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26241 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2020)

Rule:

In determining a reasonable fee, a court also should consider the Johnson factors. The Johnson factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the level of skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the attorney's customary hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in the case and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the "undesirability" of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.

Facts:

On June 1, 2014, Vazquez and New York City Police Officer Stephanie Hanna encountered Ortiz, who was intoxicated, lying on a sidewalk in upper Manhattan. They called for an ambulance and placed Ortiz in handcuffs. Ortiz was transported by ambulance to St. Luke's Hospital, where the staff sedated Ortiz because he was belligerent and intoxicated. As the hospital prepared to release Ortiz the next day after treating him for his intoxication, it discovered that he had a tibial plateau fracture injury to his knee. He was given a cast, instructed on the use of crutches, and released. Dr. Gabriel Dassa, who testified as Ortiz's expert at trial and who first saw Ortiz in late October 2014, testified that a fracture to the knee could have been caused only by extreme force, such as a blow to the inside of the leg. Dr. Gabriel Dassa, who testified as Ortiz's expert at trial and who first saw Ortiz in late October 2014, testified that a fracture to the knee could have been caused only by extreme force, such as a blow to the inside of the leg. On December 15, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants on Ortiz's unlawful seizure claim. It returned a verdict in favor of Ortiz with respect to his unlawful force claim against Vazquez, awarding Ortiz compensatory damages totaling $118,000. The damages reflected an award of $30,000 for past physical pain and suffering, $10,000 for future pain and suffering, and $78,000 for future medical expenses. The jury awarded no damages for conscious pain and suffering from the time the defendants first encountered Ortiz until the time he was placed in the ambulance. The jury did not award punitive damages. On April 27, 2018, this Court entered judgment as a matter of law in the defendants' favor. On July 17, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the jury verdict as to the excessive force claim against Vazquez. The Court of Appeals observed that the jury "does seem to have accepted the officers' account of how, why, and when they handcuffed Ortiz."  It added, however, that the jury may have credited Ortiz's testimony that Vazquez kicked him at some point during the encounter. The appeal was handled only by Lee. Ortiz calculated a lodestar for his counsel's fees of $1,034,052.50. This includes the work of three attorneys with rates ranging from $525 to $675 per hour, two attorneys with hourly rates of $225 per hour, and five paralegals at a rate of $125 per hour. These ten professionals are recorded as working a total of 1,744.30 hours. Discounting that request by 10% to account for any unnecessary duplication of effort, Ortiz seeks $930,647.25 in attorneys' fees. Characterizing Lee as a "relative novice" in the area of civil rights litigation, they contend Lee's hourly rate should be no more than $300 per hour, rather than the $575 Ortiz seeks. The defendants argue that Joshua Abrams' hourly rate should be $225, and not $525, because of his inexperience and limited involvement. The defendants propose that the hourly rate for the remaining two less experienced counsel should be $150 and for the paralegals the rate should be $100. The defendants also argue that an across the board reduction of any fee award is warranted because Ortiz's counsel engaged in overbilling. They cite vague time records and unnecessary, inefficient and duplicative work. Ortiz also sought expenses of $30,017.10. The defendants requested that the costs be reduced to $8,268.31. In his reply, Ortiz did not contend that his reimbursement for costs should exceed $8,268.31.

Issue:

Under the Johnson factors, is an hourly rate in excess of $300 warranted to obtain a qualified attorney who would agree to represent Ortiz in this "garden-variety" litigation?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that consideration of the Johnson factors does not suggest that an hourly rate in excess of $300 is warranted to obtain a qualified attorney who would agree to represent Ortiz in this "garden-variety" litigation. This case was not complex and raised no novel issues. It did not require special skill or experience from counsel, a fact that is confirmed by Lee's inexperience in handling civil rights cases. To the extent that the dispute over the admissibility of Ortiz's pre-and post-incident medical records presented a legal issue that rose above the level of routine, the Court provided the parties with the standards that would govern their admission at trial. The same considerations apply in determining the reasonable hourly rate for an associate to assist Lee in this litigation. Given these factors, an hourly rate of $200 is appropriate for an associate in this case. The reasonable hourly rate for the clerical work performed in this matter is $95. In total 350 hours at a rate of $300, 80 hours at a rate of $200, and 120 hours at a rate of $95, amounts to $132,400. The Court found that this amount would be an appropriate award of attorneys' fees in this § 1983 action. The defendants, however, have not requested an amount below $221,502.98 in attorneys' fees. The Court declined to award an amount lower than that proposed by the defendants.