Court Opinion

ID: 9955623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 20:17:21.284983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:08.505954
License: Public Domain

STATE OF VERMONT
RUTLAND COUNTY, SS

KIM ROBERTSON ) RUTLAND SUPERIOR COURT
Plaintiff ) DOCKET NO. 80458-97 ReC
)
V. ) ip COPY
) CONES RMP. COURT
ROME FAMILY CORPORATION ) :
Defendant ) AUG 26 1999

fot ern

DECISION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend
Plaintiff's Request for Attorneys’ Fees

This matter came before the Court for hearing on the above motions on July 14, 1999.
Plaintiff Kim Robertson was represented by Emily J. Joselson, Esq. Defendant Rome Family
Corporation was represented by Eugene Rakow, Esq.

Plaintiffs Motion to Alter and Amend is granted to the extent and in the manner stated
on the record.

Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in this action pursuant to 21
V.S.A. §495b(b). Plaintiff claims attorneys’ fees of $54,466.25, and. costs of $2,854.83 for a
total of $57,321.08. Upon consideration of the affidavit, arguments and memoranda of counsel
with respect to attorneys fees and costs to be awarded to the Plaintiff, the Court determines costs

and attorneys’ fees as follows:

Plaintiff is awarded all of her costs, which are reasonable. Thus, she is awarded costs in
the amount of $2,854.83.

With respect to attorneys’ fees, the Court declines to take the approach requested by
Defendant, i.e., to begin the analysis by allowing only one-half of the total of attorneys’ fees
claimed on the theory that approximately one-half of the amount of Plaintiff's original claim was
an unsuccessful claim for commissions unrelated to the FEPA claim. (The FEPA award without
interest is $33,909.63; the unsuccessful claim for commissions was $33,843.49.) Rather, the
Court will start with the “lodestar” amount as the presumptive level of compensation, as the
FEPA claim was clearly the primary claim in the action. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,
433 (1983); see also Quarantino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F. 3d 422, 425 (2d Cir. 1999). Plaintiff
has filed a statement dated May 25, 1999 detailing her claimed “lodestar” amount, which is a
reasonable billing rate multiplied by the amount of time counsel claims was reasonably spent.
The Court also declines to adopt Defendant’s principle that the award of attorneys’ fees
should not in any event exceed the award of damages. The amount of the judgment is
$33,909.63, plus interest which Plaintiff has calculated at $14,151.70 for a total judgment of
$48,061.33. The fact that Plaintiff's total attorneys fees exceed the amount of her successful
FEPA claim does not necessarily mean that the attorneys’ fees were unreasonable. The
Legislature has determined that the policy underlying FEPA is of such importance that a
successful claimant is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees for having to pursuing the claim,
without any limitation based on the dollar amount of the recovery, in order to encourage
enforcement of FEPA requirements regardless of the size of monetary damages.

Nonetheless, the Court, after reviewing the detailed billing statements, including the
descriptions of the amount of time spent on various aspects of case preparation, and comparing
them with the work that was done, concludes that reduction from the amount claimed by Plaintiff
is warranted for the following reasons:

-1) Plaintiff's claim for commissions for sales of fleece was both unrelated and
unsuccessful, and a reduction should be made to some degree for that reason. While there was
some overlap in the evidence relating to the FEPA and commission claims, most of the evidence
on the commission claim was not relevant to the FEPA claim, and the claim was based on a
completely separate body of law. Either claim could have been brought without the other. A
portion of case preparation and trial time was devoted to this claim, as distinct from the FEPA
claim. The policy of awarding attorneys’ fees in FEPA cases is not furthered by awarding an
unsuccessful plaintiff attorneys’ fees for an unrelated claim for commissions when the FEPA
claim is based on Plaintiffs status as a salaried employee. Plaintiff also pursued unsuccessful
claims for damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and intentional infliction of
emotional harm, the last of which was withdrawn at trial. Defendant should not have to pay for
work done on these claims.

2) While the hourly rates charged by Plaintiff's attorneys were reasonable, and the Court
determines that there should be no reduction for either hourly rate or the quality of the work
done, the amount of time spent exceeds what was reasonably necessary for successful pursuit of
the FEPA claim. The Court is not making a reduction for the fact that a second attorney assisted
at trial or in trial or memoranda preparation, or for charges related to other support staff.
Nonetheless, some of the memoranda, other documents, and trial examination were unnecessarily
lengthy. Defendant should not be charged for extra or unnecessary work.

3) Some of the motions filed by Plaintiff were unwarranted and resulted in costs that
should not reasonably be charged to Defendant. For example, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend
to add claims and an additional defendant, and Plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that these were
inadvertently omitted from the original complaint. (Plaintiff's Motion to Amend filed May 19,
1998.) Plaintiff requested a jury trial long after the time period in which to request a jury trial
had expired. (Amended Complaint filed August 19, 1998, and Memorandum filed September
15, 1998.) Plaintiff filed a motion seeking telephone testimony of witnesses for no unusual
reason, showing no basis for dispensing with the normal requirement for live testimony in court.

After taking into consideration the extent of reductions called for by these factors, the
Court determines that reasonable attorneys fees related to the FEPA claim in this case are as

follows:

Attorney Joselson 150 hours x $140 = 21,000
Attorney Shelkrot 50 hours x $115 = 5,750
Other staff (Per 5/25/99 bill, p. 17, reduced) = 1,710
TOTAL $28,460

Based on the foregoing, the Court awards Plaintiff reasonable attorneys fees in the
amount of $28,460.00 and costs in the amount of $2,854.83 for a total of $31,314.83.

Plaintiff shall prepare a Judgment Order based on the Findings and Conclusions of the
Court filed May 11, 1999 as amended by the Court at the hearing on July 14, 1999, and on this

Order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated at Rutland, this 26th day of August, 1999.
a he Dene boust”

HON. MARY MILES TEACHOUT
SUPERIOR JUDGE