EXHIBIT “D”

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 1 of 23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 9:20-cv-80993-WPD 

TIMOTHY O'BRY AN 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

JOE TAYLOR RESTORATION, INC., a Florida 

Corporation, AARON GETTY, individually, 

KAREN RADEWICZ, individually, and 

GLENDA GALARZA, individually, 

Defendants. 

--------------------'/ 

DECLARATION OF DANIEL R. LEVINE 

REGARDING REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES 

1. My name is Daniel R. Levine. 

2. This affidavit is based upon my own personal knowledge. 

3. I am the lead attorney for Defendants in this matter. 

4. I am a Florida Bar Board-Certified Specialist in Labor and Employment Law, 

concentrating my practice on the representation of businesses before federal and state courts, as 

well as governmental administrative agencies, in connection with the defense of claims involving 

wage and hour violations, such as unpaid overtime compensation and minimum wages; 

discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, gender, including pregnancy and 

sexual harassment, age, and disability; retaliation; the Family and Medical Leave Act; whistleblowing violations; unfair competition, non-compete agreements and trade secret violations; and 

employment contract/severance agreements. I also provide services related to general labor and 

human resource counseling; human resource audits; drafting and/or review of employee 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 2 of 23
handbooks, personnel policy manuals and job classification descriptions; drafting and/or review 

of employment and independent contractor agreements; sexual harassment and EEO training; and 

severance package negotiations. 

5. I received my B.A. degree in 1992 from the University of Florida, and my J.D. 

degree, cum laude, in 1995 from the University of Miami School of Law. At the University of 

Miami School of Law, my core curriculum centered around labor and employment law, including 

courses in traditional labor law, employment law, employment discrimination, ERISA and civil 

rights. 

6. I have been licensed to practice law in the state of Florida since 1995 and have 

practiced exclusively in the area of labor and employment law since that time. Since 2002 I have 

been designated by the Florida Bar as a Board-Certified Specialist in Labor and Employment Law. 

7. I am admitted to practice before all state courts in Florida. Additionally, I am 

admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals, 

Eleventh Circuit, and the United States District Court, Southern, Middle and Northern Districts of 

Florida. 

8. In previous years since 2012, I have been recognized as a "Top Lawyer" by the 

South Florida Legal Guide, having been previously recognized as a "Top Up and Comer" from 

2008 to 2011. Additionally, in previous years since 2011 , I have been recognized as a "Super 

Lawyer" by the Florida Super Lawyers magazine. 

9. I am a member in good standing of the Florida Bar, Labor and Employment Law 

section, serving, in the past, on the Executive Committee. I have appeared as a guest speaker on 

numerous occasions at the annual Labor and Employment Law Certification Review Seminar. I 

also have spoken at several CLE labor and employment law seminars. 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 3 of 23
10. I am a past President of the Federal Bar Association, Broward County Chapter, and 

for many years after, a member of the Chapter's Executive Board. I also have served as a past cochair for the South Palm Beach County Bar Association's Labor and Employment Law committee. 

11. I also have served as an adjunct professor for Florida International University in 

connection with a program it sponsored in the area of human resources certification and training, 

as well as an adjunct professor at Lynn University, teaching a masters level course in human 

resources, including a major focus on wage and hour issues. 

12. I am also a Florida Bar Certified Civil Circuit Mediator, Federal Court Mediator 

and Qualified Arbitrator, listed on the National Roster of Employment Law Arbitrators by the 

American Arbitration Association. 

13. A true and accurate copy of my current CV is attached hereto as Exhibit " 1 ". 

14. I am a founding partner of the Boca Raton law firm Padula Bennardo Levine, LLP. 

15. Defendants retained my law firm, and specifically me, to represent him in this case. 

Joe Taylor Restoration has been a client of my firm for many years. 

16. My normal and customary hourly rate is $450.00 per hour. I believe this reflects a 

fair market value of my reputation in this practice area, my skills as a labor and employment law 

attorney (most notably, my Board Certification in this area of practice) and my experience (25+ 

years). 

17. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" to the motion for attorney's fees and costs is a 

summary of services rendered to Defendants in resolving this matter. Briefly, from this case's 

inception on June 23, 2020, to its resolution on or about June 11, 2021 , I billed a total of 160 hours 

on this matter, representing a total of $72,000.00. My associate, Alex B.C. Ershock, billed at 

$300.00 per hour for a total of 196.40 hours on this matter, representing a total of $58,920.00. My 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 4 of 23
paralegal, Alicia Kendrick, billed at $125.00 per hour for a total of 22.10 hours on this matter, 

representing a total of $2,762.50. 

18. Undersigned believes the hourly rates are reasonable. I am a Board-Certified Labor 

and Employment attorney with over 25 years of experience who practices exclusively in labor and 

employment law. I was recently awarded my currently requested rate of $450/hr. by Judge Ruiz. 

See ECF No. 44 in Granados v. Palm Coast Building Maintenance, Case No. 20-cv-81917-RAR, 

attached as Exhibit "2." Further, this Court, and other federal courts, have awarded similar fees for 

counsel with approximately the same level of experience and certification as me. See Holland v. 

Westside Sportsbar & Lounge, Inc., 2021 WL 1819332, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2021), report 

and recommendation adopted as modified, 6: 19-CV-945-CEM-GJK, 2021 WL 1818054 (M.D. 

Fla. Feb. 12, 2021) (awarding Board-Certified labor and employment attorney with 23 years of 

experience $425/hr.); Hamilton v. Sheridan Healthcare., Inc., 2015 WL I 3540999, at *4 (S.D. Fla. 

Dec. 23, 2015), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Hamilton v. Sheridan Healthcare, 

Inc., 13-62008-CIV, 2016 WL 9444229 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2016), affd sub nom. Hamilton v. 

Sheridan Healthcorp, Inc. , 700 Fed. Appx. 883 (11th Cir. 2017) (awarding Board-Certified labor 

and employment attorney with 28 years of experience $475/hr). 

19. Mr. Ershock's hourly rate is reasonable. He has nearly 9 years of experience 

practicing law, particularly in the area of defense litigation. In the same award from Judge Ruiz, 

he was awarded $300/hr. See Ex. "2." Further, this Court has awarded similar fees for counsel 

with similar experience. See ECF No. 31 in Alarcon v. J & J, Inc., Case No. 9-62562-CIVCOHN/STRAUSS (S.D. Fla. October 19, 2020) (awarding attorneys with 7-9 years of experience 

$350/hr.), attached as Exhibit "3"; Tillman v. Advanced Pub. Safety, Inc., 15-CV-81782, 2018 WL 

5768570, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 15-81782-CIV, 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 5 of 23
2018 WL 6424899 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21 , 2018) (awarding attorney with 8 years of experience 

$375/hr.). The rate requested here is below both of these awarded rates. 

20. Ms. Kendrick's hourly rate is more than reasonable, and far below market. See 

Tillman (awarding paralegal with 30+ years of experience $175/hr). 

21 . Undersigned counsel believes the hours expended on this case are reasonable. The 

case was contested all the way through trial. It involved multiple depositions, including one of 

each Defendant and the Plaintiff. A dispositive motion was filed and fully briefed. Some discovery 

skirmishes were adjudicated. 

22. The time expenditures on this matter were also reasonable because Plaintiff and his 

counsel did not litigate the matter in good faith. On or about May 22, 2020,prior to this case being 

filed, Defendants sent a very detailed correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel, arguing many of the 

same points that would eventually be argued again at summary judgment and at trial. Moreover, 

on October 12, 2020, Defendants provided Plaintiff's counsel with subpoenaed records from 

Plaintiff's treating physician. Importantly, Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged this was the first time 

he himself even had reviewed Dr. Newcomer's records, confirming his failure to investigate these 

same records pre-suit. Simply due to the content of the doctor's notes, Plaintiff should have 

abandoned his claims at that point, and indeed, did dismiss Count II of the initially filed complaint 

after service of a Rule 11 sanctions motion. 

23. Both Mr. Ershock and Ms. Kendrick performed legal services per my direction as 

the lead attorney. Moreover, as the managing partner for my firm, I have experience in reviewing 

time records and hourly rates for the clients we represent and adjusting what Mr. Ershock (or any 

of my other previous associates) and Ms. Kendrick bill on a routine basis. 

24. Therefore, the requested fees in the amount of $126,807.50 are reasonable. 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 6 of 23
Timekeeper Hourly Number of Hours Total Fees Charged 

Rate 

Daniel R. Levine $450.00 160.00 $ 72,000.00 

Alex B.C. Ershock $300.00 196.40 $ 53,145.00 

Alicia Kendrick $125.00 22.10 $ 2,762.50 

TOTAL 378.50 $ 126,807.50 1 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I hereby declare that the foregoing is true and correct. 

!-

DANIEL R. LEVINE, ESQ. 

This total reflects a slightly discounted total from that which actually was recorded, as the 

Defendants were extended certain billing courtesies. Additionally, not reflected in the billing 

records is another approximate $10,000.00 written off and not billed to Defendants. Thus, 

Defendants are seeking reimbursement of only that which was actually paid. 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 7 of 23
EXHIBIT ''1'' 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 8 of 23
EDUCATION 

DANIEL R. LEVINE, ESQ. 

PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP 

3837 NW Boca Raton Blvd., Ste. 200 

Boca Raton, Florida 33431 

(561) 544-8900 - Telephone 

(561) 544-8999 - Facsimile 

E-Mail: drl@pbl-law.com 

Web Site: www.pbl-law.com 

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 

Juris Doctor cum laude received May 1995 

Concentration: Labor and Employment Law, including courses in traditional labor law, 

employment law, ERISA, civil rights and employment discrimination 

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 

Articles and Comments Editor (1994-95) 

Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity 

Dean's List 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

Bachelor of Arts received May 1992 

Major: English 

Dean's List 

Sigma Alpha Mu Fraternity 

Executive Council (1990-91) 

American Heart Association Philanthropy Chairman (1991) 

LEGAL EXPERIENCE 

* Florida Bar Board Certified Specialist - Labor and Employment Law 

* Certified Federal Court Mediator 

* Certified Circuit Civil Mediator 

* Florida Supreme Court Qualified Arbitrator 

GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 

* National Roster of Arbitrators and Mediators, American Arbitration Association 

PADULA BENNARDO LEVINE LLP 

July 1, 2016 - Present 

Founding Partner 

BENNARDO LEVINE LLP 

August 1, 2013 - June 30, 2016 

Founding Partner 

SHAPIRO, BLASI, WASSERMAN & GORA, P.A. 

January 1, 2003 - July 31, 2013 

Shareholder 

MUCHNICK, WASSERMAN, JAFFE & LEVINE, LLP 

May 1995-December 31 , 2002 

Partner 

BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 

BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 

BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 

HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 9 of 23
THE HONORABLE MARIAM. KORVICK 

Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida 

Summer 1993 

Legal Intern 

RELATED EXPERIENCE 

LYNN UNIVERSITY 

2013 

Adjunct Professor - Managing Human Resources 

FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 

2001- 2002 

Adjunct Professor - Legal Issues (Human Resources Certification course) 

AFFILIATIONS 

Federal Bar Association, Broward County Chapter 

President, 2003-04 

Member, Executive Committee, 2000-2015 

Florida Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section 

Member, Executive Committee, 2010-2012 

Broward County Bar Association, Labor and Employment Law Section 

South Palm Beach County Bar Association 

Co-Chair, Labor and Employment Law Committee, 2018 -

Member, Labor and Employment Law Committee, 2011 

Greater Boca Raton Chamber of Commerce 

Leadership Boca 2004, Chair 

Leadership Boca 2003, Co-Chair 

Leadership Boca 2002, Graduate 

PUBLICATIONS 

Baiton v. Carnival Cruise Lines: An Important Decision in the Evolution of 

Florida's Whistle-Blower's Act, 70 FLA. BAR J. 59 (May 1996) 

MIAMI, FLORIDA 

BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 

MIAMI, FLORIDA 

Admitted to practice in all courts in the State of Florida, United States Supreme Court, United States Court 

of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, and United States District Court, Southern and Middle Districts of Florida 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 10 of 23
EXHIBIT ''2'' 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 11 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-81917-RAR Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 1 of 2 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 20-CV-81917-RAR 

MARIA GRANADOS, JUANA GRANADOS, 

JULIA M. GRANADOS-SANTOS, and other 

similarly situated individuals, 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

PALM COAST BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC., 

and DARYL CRUPI, 

Defendants. 

I --------------------

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO RULE 16(F) 

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendants' Affidavit of Reasonable 

Attorneys' Fees ("Affidavit") [ECF No. 43-1]. On January 26, 2021, this Court entered an 

Omnibus Order [ECF No. 42] granting Defendants' Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 16(f) 

[ECF No. 34] and ordering Plaintiffs to pay Defendants' reasonable expenses incurred as a result 

of Plaintiffs' failure to appear at the settlement conference on January 11, 2021 [ECF No. 20]. 

See Omnibus Order [ECF No. 42] at 8. The Omnibus Order also required Defendants to provide 

the Court with relevant time records and an accompanying affidavit substantiating their request 

for attorney's fees. Id. On January 29, 2021, Defendants filed the instant Affidavit. 

In determining whether requested attorney's fees are reasonable, the Court considers the 

following factors: 

1) the time and labor required; 

2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; 

3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; 

4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney due to the 

acceptance of the case; 

5) the customary fee; 

6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 12 of 23
Case 9:20-cv-81917-RAR Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/05/2021 Page 2 of 2 

7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; 

8) the amount involved 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. 

Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1340 n.7 (11th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). 

With respect to the factors elucidated in Farley, the Court finds the requested sum 

reasonable. The Court has carefully reviewed the Affidavit and accompanying exhibits. The 

total time incurred in connection with the settlement conference, 8.3 hours, is reasonable. 

Additionally, the hourly rates for Mr. Levine ($450/hour) and Mr. Ershock ($300/hour), who 

collectively have over 30 years of experience, is not excessive. See James v. Wash Depot 

Holdings, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1341, 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (finding $450 was a reasonable 

hourly rate for attorneys who had over 10 and 25 years of experience, respectively, in the 

practice of labor and employment law). Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Defendants shall take from Plaintiffs the sum of $3,110.00, which is comprised of 

attorney's fees incurred in connection with the settlement conference Plaintiffs failed to attend, 

for which sum let execution issue. 

2. Each Plaintiff shall complete and return a Form 1.977 Fact Information Sheet to 

Defendants' counsel within 30 days of Defendants' service of same by U.S. Mail or e-mail. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 4th day of Fe 

R DOLFO A. RUIZ Il 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Page 2 of2 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 13 of 23
EXHIBIT ''3'' 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 14 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-J IC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 1 of 9 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CASE NO. 19-62562-CIV-COHN/STRAUSS 

LEDVIN ALARCON, 

Plaintiff, 

V. 

J & J, INC. d/b/a EAGLE PAINTING, 

a Florida corporation, and 

JOHN H. FIELD, individually, 

Defendants. 

________________ ./ 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COSTS AND 

GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' 

FEES AND TO TAX COSTS 

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion in Support of Bill of Costs 

[DE 16) and Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and to Tax Costs [DE 20) ("Motions"). 

The Court has considered the Motions, Defendant's Response [DE 24), Plaintiffs Reply 

[DE 30), and the record in this case, and is otherwise advised in the premises. 

I. Background 

J & J, Inc., doing business as Eagle Painting , is a residential and commercial 

painting company owned and operated by John Field ("Defendant"). Ledvin Alarcon 

("Plaintiff') worked as a painter for Defendant from 2005-2018. In 2019, Plaintiff filed 

suit against Defendant for unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 

U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq. ("FLSA"). See Garcia v. J & J, Inc., et al. , Case No. 0:19-60728-

CIV (S.D. Fla.). The present suit was filed on October 15, 2019, alleging retaliation 

pursuant to § 15(a)(3), the anti-retaliation provision of the FLSA. DE 1, 9. Eight months 

after filing, Plaintiff filed a Joint Notice of Settlement and Voluntary Dismissal with 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 15 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-JIC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 2 of 9 

Prejudice. DE 14. The Court entered an Order of Dismissal and reserved jurisdiction to 

decide the issue of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiff, if any. DE 15. 

In the present Motions, Plaintiff seeks a total of $11 ,035.00 in costs and fees. 

This includes $10,635.00 in attorneys' and paralegal fees for 28.9 hours of work1 and 

$400 in taxable costs. 

II. Discussion 

A. Attorneys' Fees 

Under the "American Rule" the parties to any legal action are responsible for their 

own attorneys' fees unless a statute or contract provides otherwise. James v. Wash 

Depot Holdings, Inc., 489 F. Supp. 2d 1341 , 1345-46 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (citing Alyeska 

Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975)). Under the FLSA, 

"[t]he court in such action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or 

plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the 

action." 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The parties do not dispute that Plaintiff, having received 

$4,000 in the settlement, is the prevailing party. But Defendant argues that because 

this case was "entirely unnecessary (and filed in bad faith)," the Court should award no 

attorneys' fees or costs. 2 DE 24 at 2. The Court rejects this, as "a prevailing party is 

entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees" and "awarding attorneys' fees is 

mandatory under FLSA." Valley v. Ocean Sky Limo, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1321, 1326 (S.D. 

Fla. 2015); DeMore v. Klone Enter., 2018 WL 2208370, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 13, 2018). 

1 This is the total of the fees and hours requested in the Motion, DE 20, ($7,595 for 21 .3 hours) and in the 

Reply, DE 30 ($3,040 for 7.6 hours). 2 Plaintiff argues that because Defendant failed to object to the drafts of the Motions in compliance with 

Local Rule 7.3(b) it waived its right to oppose them. DE 20 at 1. Strict compliance with the Local Rules is 

always preferred, but the Court has discretion to determine if non-compliance warrants the granting of all 

requested costs and fees . See Maale v. Kirchgessner, 2011 WL 1549058, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 22, 2011 ). 

2 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 16 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-JIC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 3 of 9 

Alternatively, Defendant proposes an award of $2,630 for 11 .3 hours of work, as 

opposed to the requested $10,635 for 28.9 hours of work. DE 24 at 18. The 

undersigned finds that reasonableness lies somewhere between each party's position . 

1. The "Lodestar" Method of Calculating Attorneys' Fees 

Courts in the Eleventh Circuit use the "lodestar" approach to calculate 

reasonable attorneys' fees. Norman v. Hous. Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 

1292 (11th Cir. 1988). Under this approach, attorneys' fees are computed by 

multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by the number of hours an attorney reasonably 

expended on the relevant litigation . .!,Q_,_ The applicant party bears the burden of 

showing both that the requested hourly rate is reasonable and that the number of hours 

spent litigating are not excessive. See Azam-Qureshi v. The Colony Hotel, Inc., 540 F. 

Supp. 2d 1293, 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2008) (citing ACLU of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 427 

(11th Cir. 1999)). Ultimately, though , determining the amount of attorneys' fees to 

award is an exercise of a court's discretion. See James, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 1346 ( citing 

Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301 ). 

2. Reasonable Hourly Rate 

The Eleventh Circuit has defined a reasonable hourly rate as "the prevailing 

market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably 

comparable skills, experience and reputation." Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 

(11th Cir. 1994) (quoting Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299). The party seeking attorneys' fees 

bears the burden of producing "satisfactory evidence that the requested rate is in line 

with prevailing market rates." Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299. The Court, however, is itself 

"an expert on the question and may consider its own knowledge and experience 

3 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 17 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-JIC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 4 of 9 

concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent judgment either 

with or without the aid of witnesses as to value." 19.:. at 1303. In calculating a 

reasonable hourly rate, the Court may consider, among other things, "the novelty and 

difficulty of the questions involved," and "the skill required to perform the legal service 

properly." Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 719 (5th Cir. 

1974). 

Here, Plaintiff's lead counsel J. Freddy Perera requests an hourly rate of $400 for 

himself and $350 an hour for fellow partner Brody Shulman. He also requests $325 an 

hour for senior associate Waynice Green, $250 an hour for associate Stepanka 

Hofmanova, and $125 for paralegal Tatyanna Howard. DE 20 at 17-19. Mr. Perera has 

been practicing for 9 years and is a founding partner at Perera Barnhart Aleman. Mr. 

Shulman has also been practicing for 9 years. Plaintiff cites two cases in this district, 

one from this Court, which found Mr. Perera's hourly rate of $400 and Mr. Shulman's 

hourly rate of $350 reasonable. DE 20 at 18-19. As Defendant points out, both 

approvals were in the context of Settlement Agreements where the parties agreed on 

attorneys' fees. DE 24 at 11-12. That is not to say that the Court did not review the 

amounts for reasonableness, it is just to say that the context is indeed different. 

Plaintiff focuses his argument on the fact that clients regularly pay the requested 

hourly rates for his counsel. DE 20 at 17-19. That may be true, but this was a relatively 

straightforward FLSA retaliation case that quickly settled. It was not a case that 

required expertise or a high level of skill, and there was nothing complex or novel about 

the questions involved. Plaintiff does not argue otherwise. Thus, the Court finds $350 

to be a reasonable hourly rate for both Mr. Perera and Mr. Shulman , who share the 

4 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 18 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-JIC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 5 of 9 

same number of years of experience. See Cardoza v. Mario's Cleaning Serv., Corp .. 

2018 WL 1353141, at *3 (S.D. Fla. March 14, 2018) (awarding $350 for an attorney with 

eighteen years' experience); De Armas v. Miabraz, LLC, 2013 WL 4455699, at *4 (S.D. 

Fla. Aug. 16, 2013) (finding $300 and $350 an hour for attorneys with 7-9 years' 

experience "near the high end of reasonable"). 

Regarding Ms. Green, the Court finds $325 an hour to be unreasonable, 

especially given that her employment law experience is more than half that of Mr. 

Shulman, who charges only $25 more an hour. Additionally, $325 is excessive in light 

of the skill required to perform the work she did, which was drafting a subpoena. An 

hourly rate of $250 is more appropriate. See Rodriguez v. Pasat Roofing, Inc. , 2014 

WL 11706450, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 10, 2014) (finding $200 an hour for an attorney with 

4 years' experience as a Florida attorney reasonable). Additionally, the Court finds 

$200 an hour appropriate for Ms. Hofmanova, who has been a Florida attorney for one 

year. See Martinez v. Hernando Cnty. Sheriffs Office, 2013 WL 6047020, at *2 (M.D. 

Fla. Nov. 13, 2013) (awarding $125 an hour for attorneys with less than two years of 

experience). The Court does not take issue with the $125 paralegal hourly rate. 

3. Reasonable Hours Expended 

The Eleventh Circuit has stressed that fee applicants must exercise "billing 

judgment," meaning "they must exclude from their fee applications excessive, 

redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours." ACLU of Ga., 168 F.3d at 428 (quoting 

Norman, 836 F.2d at 1301). When a court finds the number of hours claimed to be 

unreasonably high, it may conduct an hour-by-hour analysis or may reduce the 

requested hours with an across the board cut. Bivens v. Wrap It Up, Inc., 548 F.3d 

5 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 19 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-JIC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 6 of 9 

1348, 1350 (11th Cir. 2008); Williamsv. R.W. Cannon, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1302, 1309 

(S.D. Fla. 2009). As there are only five timekeepers with approximately thirty entries, 

the Court will conduct a line-by-line analysis. 

Starting with Mr. Perera, he has 18 time entries totaling 21 hours. DE 20-7, DE 

30-11. The Court does not take issue with Mr. Perera's first seven entries, which relate 

to drafting the complaint, communicating with opposing counsel , and drafting motions 

and interrogatories. These entries equal 3.2 hours. The next five entries, and the first 

one on August 5th, relate to drafting or editing the present Motions. As Plaintiff admits, 

"most of the time spent on this case actually related to the filing of this Motion." DE 20 

at 20. Indeed, as those entries equal 9 hours. It should be noted that more than half of 

the Motions is spent extensively and unnecessarily detailing the facts of the underlying 

case and explaining that retaliation claims are proper. DE 20. The Court finds that half 

the billed time, 4.5 hours, would have been more than sufficient for drafting the Motions. 

Mr. Perera has two entries for researching case law for the Motions, totaling 1. 7 

hours. The Court agrees with Defendant that this work could have, and indeed should 

have, been delegated to an associate. Thus, the Court will allow these entries at the 

rate of Ms. Green's $250. See U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Enterprise Leasing Co., Inc., 2004 WL 

21659097, at * (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2003) ("Research of case law and rules for 

intervention is a task for an associate or paralegal and should be billed at an associate 

or paralegal rate, not at a partner rate."). Mr. Perera has three additional entries relating 

to Plaintiffs Reply, totaling 7.1 hours. DE 30-11 . The Court does not take issue with 

the 1.1 hours analyzing Defendant's Response but finds the 6 hours drafting and editing 

the Reply excessive. As above, the Court will reduce this by half, allowing 3 hours. In 

6 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 20 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-JIC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 7 of 9 

sum, the Court will permit recovery of 11.8 of Mr. Perera's hours at an hourly rate of 

$350 and 1. 7 hours at Ms. Green's hourly rate of $250. 

Mr. Shulman has 8 entries totaling 2.6 hours. The Court finds that Mr. Shulman's 

entry for drafting the one-substantive-page Statement of Claim for .5 hours is excessive. 

Plaintiff may recover .3 hours for this task. Mr. Shulman also has four entries for filing 

notices and pleadings, totaling 1 hour. "While th is work is necessary to litigate a case, it 

hardly calls upon the skills and training of an attorney billing" at $350.00 an hour. See 

Peress v. Wand , 597 F. Supp. 2d 1320, 1325 (S.D. Fla. 2008). Instead, these hours will 

be recovered at the paralegal hourly rate of $125. The Court does not take issue with 

Mr. Shulman's other three entries, totaling 1.1 hours. Therefore, the Court will permit 

recovery of 1.4 hours at Mr. Shulman's $350 rate and 1 hour at the $125 paralegal rate. 

Ms. Green has two entries totaling .4 hours. The Court does not take issue with 

these and will permit recovery at $250 an hour. Ms. Hofmanova has three entries 

totaling 4.2 hours. The Court only takes issue with the last, 1. 7 hours for legal research 

concerning whether the Court has jurisdiction after voluntary dismissal. But the parties 

agreed to this issue, and the Court ordered it so in the Order of Dismissal. DE 15. 

These hours were unnecessary and will be stricken. The Court will permit recovery of 

the remaining 2.5 hours at a rate of $200. Lastly, paralegal Tatyanna Howard billed .7 

hours for reviewing and calendaring the trial order. "A party may only recover fees for 

paralegal service to the extent the paralegal performs work traditionally performed by an 

attorney rather than work that is clerical or secretarial in nature." Strickland v. Air 

Rescue Air Conditioning, Inc., 2016 WL 11581971 , at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug . 25, 2016), 

report and recommendation adopted , 2016 WL 11581970 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 12, 2016). 

7 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 21 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-JIC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 8 of 9 

Calendaring is secretarial, not legal work, and is not compensable. Thus, the . 7 hours 

will be stricken. 

4. Calculation of the "Lodestar" 

Finally, the Court calculates the permitted attorneys' fees as follows. Plaintiff is 

entitled to recover $5,770 in attorneys' fees. The Court believes this is fair and 

reasonable in light of the difficulty of the issues, the skill required to adequately perform 

the legal services, and the hours billed that were unnecessary and excessive. 

Timekeeper Reasonable Rate Reasonable Hours Total 

Perera $350 11.8 $4,130 

Shulman $350 1.4 $490 

Green $250 2.1 $525 

Hofmanova $200 2.5 $500 

Howard $125 1 $125 

Totals 18.8 $5,770 

B. Costs 

Plaintiff requests $400 in taxable costs. As stated above,§ 216(b) of the FLSA 

allows a prevailing party to recover "costs of the action." Additionally, Rule 54 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also provides that costs "should be allowed to the 

prevailing party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1 ). Under Rule 54, "fees of the clerk and 

marshal" may be taxed as costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1920(1 ). In order to recover these costs, 

a bill of costs shall be filed. 19..:. Plaintiff seeks recovery of the $400 filing fee for this 

action and has attached a Bill of Costs and documentary support to his Motions. DE 

8 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 22 of 23
Case 0:19-cv-62562-J IC Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/19/2020 Page 9 of 9 

16-4, 16-5. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to the filing fee because "the 

case never should have been filed in the first place." DE 24 at 20. But the statutes 

create a presumption in favor of awarding costs, and the Court's "discretion to deny 

costs (in particular to a prevailing plaintiff under[] the Fair Labor Standards Act) is quite 

limited." Valley v. Ocean Sky Limo, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1321 , 1330 (S.D. Fla. 2015). 

Defendant has not overcome this presumption. Accordingly, the Court will award 

Plaintiff $400 in costs. 

Ill. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows: 

1. Plaintiff's Motion in Support of Bill of Costs [DE 16] is GRANTED. Plaintiff is 

entitled to recover costs in the amount of $400 against Defendant. 

2. Plaintiff's Verified Motion for Attorneys' Fees and to Tax Costs [DE 20] is 

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys' 

fees in the amount of $5,770.00 against Defendant. 

3. The Court will separately enter a Final Judgement for Attorneys' Fees and Costs 

in favor of Plaintiff. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, 

Florida, this 19th day of October, 2020. 

Copies provided to counsel of record via CM/EC 

9 

Case 9:20-cv-80993-WPD Document 92-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2021 Page 23 of 23