Rozell v. Ross-Holst

576 F.Supp.2d 527

Mary ROZELL, Plaintiff, v. Courtney ROSS-HOLST, an individual, Andco, LLC, a corporation, and Neil Pirozzi, an individual, Defendants.

No. 05 Civ. 2936(JGK)(JCF).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

May 29, 2008.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Kathleen W. Peratis, Mark Robert Humowiecki, Outten & Golden, LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

A. Michael Weber, Michael Peter Pappas, Littler Mendelson, P.C. (NY), New York, NY, Elena Paraskevas-Thadani, Littler Mendelson, P.C. (Newark), Newark, NJ, Nancy E. Pritikin, Littler Mendelson, P.C. (CA), San Francisco, CA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES C. FRANCIS IV, United States Magistrate Judge.

The plaintiff, Mary Rozell, brought this employment discrimination case pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law (the "NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (the "NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. She also asserted claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (the "ECPA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., and New York Penal Law § 156.10. Immediately prior to trial, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, resolving all substantive claims but reserving the issue of an award of attorneys' fees for subsequent determination. Ms. Rozell then submitted an application for attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the applicable sections of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(f); and the ECPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2707(b)(3). The defendants objected to many aspects of the plaintiff's application.

Background

A. Facts Alleged and the Course of Litigation

Mary Rozell was formerly an employee of Andco, LLC ("Andco"). She was hired to oversee the art collection co-owned by Courtney Ross-Hoist, the principal of Andco, and the Ross Family Foundation. Ms. Rozell contends that Neil Pirozzi, who was her supervisor and the Chief Financial Officer at Andco, repeatedly touched her in a sexual manner against her will and made off-color comments to her. She alleges that when she complained to Ms. Ross-Hoist, Mr. Pirozzi retaliated against her, ultimately terminating her employment. Then, after her attorney sent a letter of complaint to Andco, Mr. Pirozzi purportedly "hacked" into Ms. Rozell's electronic mail account and accessed many of her e-mails, including communications between Ms. Rozell and her attorney.

Following her termination, Ms. Rozell retained the law firm of Outten & Golden LLP, which filed a charge on her behalf with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"). When the EEOC did not issue a determination within 180 days, Ms. Rozell obtained a right-tosue letter and commenced this action. She asserted claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. She also alleged that by accessing her e-mail account without authorization, Mr. Pirozzi violated the ECPA and New York Penal Law § 156.10.

The defendants answered the complaint, denying all of the allegations of wrongdoing. In addition, they asserted counterclaims against Ms. Rozell, alleging that she had committed trespass and violated New York Penal Law § 140.05 by allowing unauthorized persons into Ms. Ross-Hoist's apartment to view artwork for which the plaintiff has been responsible.

Highly contentious litigation ensued. The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaims but, after briefing was complete, sought to withdraw the motion. The defendants consented to withdrawal of the motion, but sought an award of costs, including attorneys' fees. The Honorable John G. Koeltl, U.S.D.J., permitted the motion to be withdrawn without prejudice and denied the defendants' application for an award of fees. (Order dated March 3, 2006).

As discovery progressed, disputes between the parties required numerous court conferences and resulted in at least eleven discovery orders. (Memorandum and Order dated Jan. 20, 2006; Memorandum Endorsement dated Jan. 26, 2006; Memorandum Endorsement dated Feb. 24, 2006; Memorandum Endorsement dated March 14, 2006; Memorandum Endorsement dated May 22, 2006; Memorandum Endorsement dated May 30, 2006; Order dated July 19, 2006; Order dated Aug. 8, 2006; Memorandum Endorsement dated Aug. 11, 2006; Memorandum Endorsement dated Sept. 15, 2006; Memorandum Endorsement dated Sept. 26, 2006). In some instances these discovery orders were the subject of applications for reconsideration or appeals to Judge Koeltl.

At the conclusion of discovery, the parties made cross-motions for summary judgment, each of which Judge Koeltl granted in part and denied in part. (Order dated June 21, 2007). The parties then submitted their joint pretrial order and filed pretrial motions, including motions in limine by both parties and a motion by the defendants to bifurcate the proceedings and try the issue of punitive damages separately. The parties also submitted proposed voir dire questions and requested jury instructions.

In the meantime, the parties met for sporadic settlement discussions, sometimes with my assistance and sometimes on their own. Prior to the scheduled trial date, the defendants made a formal offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the plaintiff did not accept. On the eve of trial, however, the parties reached a settlement, the terms of which are confidential. As part of that settlement, they agreed that the plaintiffs claim for attorneys' fees would be submitted to the Court for resolution.

B. The Plaintiffs Fee Application

In their initial application, plaintiffs counsel sought a total of $1,348,877.50 in attorneys' fees and $32,021.83 in costs and disbursements. (Declaration of Kathleen Peratis dated Feb. 8, 2008 ("Peratis 2/8/08 Decl."), ¶ 21 & Exhs. F, G). The following chart shows the breakdown of work performed and hourly rates requested for each attorney and non-professional for whom compensation is sought:

NAME                   STATUS           HOURS     RATE         TOTAL
Kathleen Peratis       Partner         802.30    $675.00    $541,552.50
Lewis Steel            Of Counsel       22.30    $625.00    $ 13,937.50
Carmelyn P. Malalis    Associate       122.70    $375.00    $ 46,012.50
Mark R. Humowiecki     Associate     1,388.60    $375.00    $520,725.00
Ossai Miazad           Associate       175.40    $275.00    $ 48,235.00
Tara Lai Quinlan       Associate        33.70    $275.00    $  9,267.50
Delyanne Barros        Law Clerk       164.00    $195.00    $ 31,980.00
Jennifer Liu           Law Clerk        12.30    $195.00    $  2,398.50
Laureve Blackstone     Law Clerk        22.50    $195.00    $  4,387.50
Roli M. Khare          Law Clerk        78.20    $195.00    $ 15,249.00
Unknown                File Clerk       46.90    $ 80.00    $  3,752.00
Faith S. Bekermus      Paralegal        13.50    $150.00    $  2,025.00
Jennifer Jung          Paralegal        13.40    $175.00    $  2,345.00
Jamy Rodriguez         Paralegal        10.20    $150.00    $  1,530.00
James Yu               Paralegal        38.90    $150.00    $  5,835.00
Kristin Cabildo        Paralegal       292.70    $150.00    $ 43,905.00
Lena Moy Borgen        Paralegal        32.60    $150.00    $  4,890.00
Marwan Sewail          Paralegal        15.30    $150.00    $  2,295.00
Michelle Lee           Paralegal         5.00    $150.00    $    750.00
Olivia J. Quinto       Paralegal       183.50    $150.00    $ 27,525.00
Piel A. Lora           Paralegal        44.80    $150.00    $  6,720.00
Garrett Kaske          Part-Time
                       Paralegal        14.70    $140.00    $  2,058.00
Rachel S. Kitson       Paralegal        10.00    $150.00    $  1,500.00
Susan Zheng            Paralegal        53.50    $150.00    $  8,025.00

Unknown                Technical
                       Coordinator      11.30    $175.00    $ 1,977.50

(Peratis 2/8/08 Decl., Exh. F).

After the defendants submitted their opposition, plaintiff's counsel revised their application by deleting certain entries, thereby reducing the requested attorneys' fees by $5,668.25 and requested costs and disbursements by $112.00. (Declaration of Kathleen Peratis dated March 28, 2008 ("Peratis 3/28/08 Decl."), Exhs. 13, 14). At the same time, the plaintiff submitted a supplemental request reflecting fees of $85,743.50 and costs of $1,279.91 incurred subsequent to the initial application. (Peratis 3/28/08 Decl., Exhs. 11, 12). The supplemental fee application consists of work performed as follows:

NAME                   STATUS          HOURS        RATE          TOTAL
Kathleen Peratis       Partner         31.50        $675.00     $ 21,262.50
Carmelyn P. Malalis    Associate       15.10        $375.00     $  5,662.50
Mark R. Humowiecki     Associate        7.30        $375.00     $  2,737.50
Ossai Miazad           Associate      116.70        $275.00     $ 32,092.50
Delyanne Barros        Law Clerk       12.10        $195.00     $  2,359.50
Ian Silverbrand        Law Clerk        7.40        $195.00     $  1,443.00
Zaid Hydari            Law Clerk        9.00        $195.00     $  1,755.00
Garrett Kaske          Part-Time
                       Paralegal        7.90        $140.00     $  1,106.00
James Yu               Paralegal       10.20        $150.00     $  1,530.00
Kristen Cabildo        Paralegal       37.70        $150.00     $  5,655.00
Piel A. Lora           Paralegal        1.30        $150.00     $    195.00
Olivia J. Quinto       Paralegal       66.30        $150.00     $  9,945.00

(Peratis 3/28/08 Decl., Exh. 11). The plaintiff therefore seeks a total of $1,428,952.75 in fees and $34,275.12 in costs and disbursements. (Peratis 3/28/08 Decl., ¶ 45 & Exh. 13).

The defendants oppose the plaintiff's application on the grounds that (1) the rates...