Court Opinion

ID: 9881448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 18:00:57.398477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:50.772202
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 SANTIAGO RAMOS MUNOZ,

                         Plaintiff,
                                                              Civil Action No. 21-2789
                         v.
                                                              Judge Beryl A. Howell
 TELLIGENT MASONRY LLC, et al.,

                         Defendants.

                                      MEMORANDUM OPINION

        This run-of-the-mill wage dispute between plaintiff Santiago Ramos Munoz and his

former employer, defendants Telligent Masonry LLC and its owner and director, Chris Papas,

has turned into nothing short of a windfall―not for plaintiff, but for plaintiff’s counsel. Plaintiff,

as the wronged employee, is walking away with a settlement of $4,379, while his counsel is

asking for more than 1100% of that amount in fees, namely, $50,893.11. See Pl.’s Second Supp.

Mot. for Attys’ Fees and Costs (“Pl.’s Second Supp.”) at 5, ECF No. 18. While the parties do

not dispute that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees as a prevailing party in this

case, see Defs.’ Response to Pl.’s Mot. for Attys’ Fees and Costs (“Defs.’ Response”) at 1, ECF

No. 11, the fees requested by the plaintiff are patently unreasonable. The Court thus awards

$9,500 to cover plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, based on the time reasonably and

meaningfully spent to advance the plaintiff’s interests in this case. See Defs.’ Response at 16.

I.      BACKGROUND

        The factual background and procedural history relevant to the pending motion are

described below.

                                                   1
         A.       Factual Background

         Defendant Papas is the owner and director of defendant company Telligent Masonry

LLC, and was an employer of plaintiff, who performed masonry work for defendants between

mid-2015 to early-2020. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s work for defendants included

masonry work on “an apartment complex located next to the new D.C. United Stadium, an

apartment complex located near the corners of H and 6th Streets, N.E. Washington, D.C., and a

government building near the old D.C. United Stadium.” Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff asserts that he spent

more than 50% of his working time in the District of Columbia. Id. at ¶ 9.

         During his employment, plaintiff alleges that defendants did not pay him for every hour

worked, and that defendants failed to pay him an overtime rate for overtime hours. Id. at ¶ 10.

Since plaintiff completed some of this work for defendants in the District of Columbia, his

employment was covered by the District of Columbia Minimum Wage Revision Act

(“DCMWRA”) and the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Act (“DCWPCA”),

in addition to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Id. at ¶ 2.

         B.       Procedural Background

         Plaintiff filed the complaint in this matter in October 2021, asserting claims for unpaid

overtime wages under the DCWPCA, DCMWRA, and FLSA. Id. at ¶ 4. 1 Plaintiff asserted

entitlement to “unpaid overtime wages plus an equivalent amount equal to three times his unpaid

overtime wages as liquidated damages pursuant to D.C. Code §§ 32-1012 (b)(1), along with

attorney’s fees at the Legal Services Index Rate and/or the rates set forth in Salazar ex rel. v.

District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 2015), as required by D.C. Code § 32-1308 (b)(1).”

Compl. ¶ 12. Plaintiff also sought “unpaid overtime wages for the entire period of employment

1
         This Court has subject matter jurisdiction to resolve plaintiff’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
pendant jurisdiction over plaintiff’s District of Columbia claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

                                                          2
with Defendants, plus an equal amount in liquidated damages, plus attorney’s fees at the Legal

Services Index Rates” for his FLSA claim. Id. at ¶ 13. Plaintiff did not pay his attorneys’ fees as

they accrued, but rather the “case was undertaken on a contingency basis on the assumption that

[plaintiff’s counsel] would petition the Court for its fees and costs at current LSI Laffey Matrix

rates if Plaintiff prevailed.” Pl.’s Mot. Attys’ Fees & Costs (“Pl.’s Mot”), Ex. B, Decl. of Omar

Vincent Melehy (“Omar Melehy Decl.”) ¶ 26, ECF No. 10-3.

       In the interests of judicial economy, and to the benefit of all parties involved, defendants

sought to resolve this dispute through settlement as quickly and efficiently as possible. See

Defs.’ Response, Ex. 1, Aff. of Brandon Mourges (“Mourges Aff.”) ¶¶ 5–6, ECF No. 11-2.

Defendants’ counsel first contacted plaintiff’s counsel to explore options to resolve the dispute

on November 5, 2021, approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed. Id. at ¶ 5. Given

this prompt and cooperative response, the parties agreed to extend the defendants’ deadline to

file an answer, to allow time for settlement discussions before that deadline. Id. at ¶ 6.

       Defendants provided plaintiff with all requested payroll documents to investigate his

claim. Id. at ¶ 8. Using those payroll documents, defendants determined that while plaintiff

worked approximately 9,500 hours for defendants and was paid more than $200,000, his total

unpaid overtime wages was $1,046.50. Defs.’ Response at 3. Defendants then communicated a

settlement offer to plaintiff on November 11, 2021, offering $2,093.00, equal to his unpaid

wages multiplied by two to include liquidated damages under the FLSA. Mourges Aff. ¶ 10.

Without responding to defendants’ offer, plaintiff requested additional documents to review,

including pay stubs and pay checks, which defendants provided on November 18, 2021. Id. at ¶

11.

                                                 3
         Defendants followed up with plaintiff on December 6, 2021, after initially receiving no

response, and plaintiff rejected defendants’ settlement offer on December 7, 2021, twenty-seven

days after the offer was extended. Id. at ¶¶ 12–13. Plaintiff indicated that his calculation of the

unpaid wages was $1,282.25, rather than $1,046.50, and that the maximum liquidated damages

were $3,096.75, for a total of $4,379.00. Id; Pl.’s Mot., Ex. C., Decl. of Suvita Melehy (“Suvita

Melehy Decl.”) ¶ 8, ECF No. 10-4. Of this $4,379, plaintiff attributed $3,629, or approximately

83%, of the damages sought to work performed in the District of Columbia, and $750 to work

performed in Maryland. Pl.’s Reply Mem. Supp. Attys’ Fees and Costs (“Pl.’s Reply”), Ex. B,

Settlement Demand Letter at 2, ECF No. 13-2.

         In addition to the $4,379 in unpaid wages and liquidated damages, plaintiff’s response

demanded $25,000, plus future attorneys’ fees and costs. Settlement Demand Letter at 2; see

also Mourges Aff. ¶ 13. 2 Surprised by the excessive fee request, the next day, defendants

requested a breakdown of hours spent by plaintiff’s counsel on the case. Mourges Aff. ¶ 14.

One week later, plaintiff’s counsel emailed to say that no detailed breakdown of time worked

could be provided, noting that providing the requested hours breakdown “would take

considerable time,” adding to the already hefty attorneys’ fee bill. Id. at ¶ 18. On December 17,

2021, plaintiff provided defendants with a summary of total hours billed, by timekeeper. Id. at

¶ 20. This showed only that Partner Omar Vincent Melehy billed 9.6 hours to the case, Partner

Suvita Melehy billed 7.8 hours to the case, Associate Andrew Balashov billed 7.5 hours to the

case, and paralegals cumulatively billed 25.3 hours to the case. Id. At this point, plaintiff also

indicated that his costs were between $750 to $1,200. Id.

2
         Plaintiff did not provide defendants with time records of plaintiff’s counsel at the time that he demanded
$25,000 in attorneys’ fees, but defendants note that, based on the time records that were later provided, plaintiff had
only incurred approximately $19,000 in fees at this point. Defs.’ Response at 4.

                                                           4
       Defendants filed their answer on December 17, 2021, before receiving the billing

summary from the plaintiff. See Answer, ECF No. 8; Defs.’ Response, Ex. 2, Aff. of Meighan

G. Burton (“Burton Aff.”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 11-3. On December 28, 2021, without receiving a more

detailed fee statement, defendants offered to settle for the full amount in unpaid wages and

liquidated damages claimed by plaintiff, $4,379, and $9,396 in attorneys’ fees, which defendants

estimated was the amount of reasonable fees incurred at this stage of the litigation. Id. at ¶ 4.

Plaintiff’s counsel quickly rejected the attorney fee amount, although counsel indicated that she

had not yet conferred with plaintiff about the settlement. Id. at ¶ 5.

       The parties’ counsel spoke via telephone on December 30, 2021, and defendants’ counsel

again requested information about plaintiff’s counsels time spent on the case, in the hopes of

resolving the attorneys’ fees issue. Id. at ¶ 6. On January 10, 2022, the parties finalized a

settlement agreement as to plaintiff’s claims, after plaintiff’s counsel insisted that defendants’

counsel draft and submit a settlement agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 7–9. The settlement agreement was

executed on January 17, 2022. Pl.’s Reply, Ex. D, Supp. Decl. of Suvita Melehy (“Suvita

Melehy Second Decl.”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 13-4. The parties continued negotiating the fees. Burton

Aff. at ¶ 12. On January 28, 2022, plaintiff’s counsel extended a demand for $29,500 in

attorneys’ fees and costs, and finally provided a breakdown of the fees billed. Id. at ¶¶ 12–13.

The parties were still unable to agree, however, on a reasonable fee amount. Id. at ¶ 13.

       Plaintiff filed a motion for attorneys’ fees on February 7, 2022, seeking $31,554.40 in

attorneys’ fees and $635.44 in costs. Pl.’s Mot. at 1. Plaintiff also requested that the Court

award “any additional attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in connection with

preparing the reply memorandum.” Id. Defendants opposed, arguing that plaintiff’s request was

unreasonable, “particularly in this case, where the Defendants sought to avoid the unnecessary

                                                  5
accumulation of exorbitant attorneys’ fees by seeking a quick and quite favorable resolution for

Plaintiff, but was delayed at every turn by Plaintiff’s counsel.” Defs.’ Response at 1.

Defendants requested that the fee award be reduced to $9,000 in fees and $500 in costs. Id. at

16. In reply, plaintiff increased the fee request to $37,935 in fees and $667.85 in costs to account

for the fees associated with preparing his reply. Pl.’s Reply at 2; see also Pl.’s First Supp. Mot.

Atty’s Fees and Costs (“Pl.’s First Supp.”), Ex. B, Supp. Decl. of Omar Vincent Melehy (“Omar

Melehy Second Decl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 14-2.

       With the parties’ consent, this case was then referred to mediation to resolve the only

remaining dispute in this case concerning a reasonable fee reward. See Order Setting Mediation

and Establishing Mediation Procedures, ECF No. 16. In November 2022, the parties submitted a

joint status report indicating that their attempts at mediation were unsuccessful. Joint Status

Report (November 2, 2022), ECF No. 17. After a final supplement from the plaintiff and

response from the defendants, the plaintiff’s fee request now stands at $50,133.50 in attorneys’

fees and $759.61 in costs. Pl.’s Second Supp. at 5; see also Pl.’s Second Supp., Ex. C, Supp.

Decl. of Omar Vincent Melehey (“Omar Melehy Third Decl.”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 18-3.

II.    LEGAL STANDARD

       The FLSA provides that if a plaintiff prevails in an action to enforce his or her rights

under the statute, the Court should “allow a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid by the defendant,

and costs of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The DCMWRA and DCWPCA also provide for an

award of fees to a successful plaintiff. See D.C. Code §§ 32–1012(c), 32–1308(b)(1).

Attorneys’ fees are not limited to time spent in, and preparing for, adversarial proceedings alone.

“Rather, an attorney can recover for work when there is ‘a clear showing that the time was

expended in pursuit of a successful resolution of the case in which fees are being claimed.’”

                                                 6
Baylor v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Assocs., P.C., 735 F. App’x 733, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (per

curiam) (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Concerned Veterans v. Sec’y of Def. (“Concerned Veterans”),

675 F.2d 1319, 1335 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (per curiam)).

       In applying a statutory fee-shifting provision allowing recovery of reasonable attorneys’

fees, the “guiding light” is “the lodestar method[, which] produces an award that roughly

approximates the fee that the prevailing attorney would have received if he or she had been

representing a paying client who was billed by the hour in a comparable case.” Perdue v. Kenny

A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 550–51 (2010) (emphasis in original). This estimation is carried

out in three steps, where the Court will “(1) determine the number of hours reasonably expended

in litigation; (2) set the reasonable hourly rate; and (3) use multipliers as warranted.” Salazar ex

rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia, 809 F.3d 58, 61 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing Eley v. District of

Columbia, 793 F.3d 97, 100 (D.C. Cir. 2015)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

       The determination of the reasonable hourly rate will involve consideration of “(1) ‘the

attorneys’ billing practices,’ (2) ‘the attorneys’ skills, experience, and reputation’ and (3) ‘the

prevailing market rates in the relevant community.’” Id. at 62 (quoting Covington v. District of

Columbia, 57 F.3d 1101, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). The rates for claims under the DCMWRA and

DCWPCL are also codified by statute and must be based on “the matrix approved in Salazar v.

District of Columbia, 123 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000).” D.C. Code § 32-1308(b)(1).

       Initially, the “fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award,

documenting the appropriate hours, and justifying the reasonableness of the rates.” Eley, 793

F.3d at 100 (quoting Covington, 57 F.3d at 1107). Fee requests should be supported by

documentation updated contemporaneously as the attorneys conduct their work. Heller v.

District of Columbia, 832 F. Supp. 2d 32, 50 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Concerned Veterans, 675

                                                  7
F.2d at 1327 (“Attorneys who anticipate making a fee application must maintain

contemporaneous, complete and standardized time records which accurately reflect the work

done by each attorney.”). Once an applicant meets this burden, a presumption applies that the

product of the number of hours billed and the hourly rates, is “the reasonable fee.” Covington,

57 F.3d at 1109 (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897 (1984)). At that point, the burden

shifts to the opposing party to “provide specific contrary evidence tending to show that a lower

rate would be appropriate,” id. at 1110 (quoting Concerned Veterans, 675 F.2d at 1326), or that a

multiplier should be applied.

       Hours billed may be reduced accordingly if a plaintiff prevails on only one of a number

of claims. Mitchell Rubenstein Assocs., 735 F. App’x at 736 (citing Williams v. First Gov’t

Mortg. & Inv’rs Corp., 225 F.3d 738, 746 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (“Under settled law, [a litigant] may

recover fees only for work related to the claim on which he prevailed, and the fees awarded on

that claim must be reasonable in relation to the success achieved.”)). Additionally, “a court may

punish an intolerably excessive fee request by denying any award at all,” Baylor v. Mitchell

Rubenstein & Assocs., P.C. (“Baylor I”), 857 F.3d 939, 957 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (Henderson, J.,

concurring), and may “impose a lesser sanction, such as awarding a fee below what a

‘reasonable’ fee would have been in order to discourage fee petitioners from submitting an

excessive request,” Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v Reilly, 1 F.3d 1254, 1258 (D.C. Cir.

1993). This is the case even when a statute provides for mandatory fee shifting. Baylor I, 857

F.3d at 958 (Henderson, J., concurring) (explaining that the “statutory text [of a mandatory fee-

shifting statute] does not preclude a court from deciding—consistent with its inherent authority

to protect the integrity of its proceedings—that a ‘reasonable’ fee in response to an exorbitant

request is a nominal amount approaching zero.” (internal citation omitted)). The determination

                                                 8
of what constitutes a reasonable fee award is within the “broad discretion” of the district court,

and appellate courts “are ill-positioned to second guess the [district] court’s [fee] determination.”

Id. (quoting Morgan v. District of Columbia, 824 F.2d 1049, 1066 (D.C. Cir. 1987)).

III.   DISCUSSION

       The parties do not dispute that plaintiff is a prevailing party entitled to attorneys’ fees.

See Defs.’ Response at 1. The parties’ settlement agreement states that “[p]laintiff is a prevailing

party and entitled to attorneys’ fees pursuant to the FLSA, DCWPCL and the DCMWRA.”

Suvita Melehy Decl. ¶ 8. Defendants dispute plaintiff’s assertion that his requested fee is

“reasonable,” however, arguing that the fee is excessive in this case where defendants tried to

settle the case as expeditiously as possible and plaintiff’s recovery is less than one tenth of the

requested fees. See Defs.’ Response at 15–16. Defendants here are correct that the fee amount

requested by plaintiff is extraordinary, if not outrageous, in the context of this case. The

following discussion sets out the arguments from both parties as to the hours billed and

applicable rates, and then explains why a significant downward adjustment is necessary to set the

appropriate fee award in this case.

       A.      Billing Rate

       The parties agree that the DCMWRA and DCWPCL mandate that the LSI Laffey v.

Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), rates apply to plaintiff’s claims to the

extent they were brought under those statutes. Defs.’ Response at 11; see also Jackson v.

Contemporary Family Servs., No. 18-cv-2349, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188931, at *6 (D.D.C.

2019) (“With respect to the hourly rate, the DCWPCL mandates that the Court apply the Legal

Services Index Matrix.”); Stephens v. Farmers Restaurant Group, No. 17-cv-1087, 2019 WL

2550674, at *9 (D.D.C. June 20, 2019) (“Indeed, the DCMWA specifically mandates that an

award of attorney’s fees under that statute be based on the lodestar matrix for attorney fee rates
                                                  9
approved in Salazar v. District of Columbia, 123 F. Supp. 2d 8 (D.D.C. 2000).”); Herrera v.

Mitch O’Hara LLC, 257 F. Supp. 3d 37, 46 (D.D.C. 2017) (“Because the Salazar court utilized

the attorneys’ fee matrix that has been updated to account for inflation using the Legal Services

Index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the ‘LSI Laffey matrix’), the statute’s plain language

requires use of the LSI Laffey matrix to determine the applicable rate.”); Serrano v. Chicken-

Out, Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d 179, 197 (D.D.C. 2016) (“Yet here the undersigned need not face the

difficult question of the quantum and quality of evidence needed to justify LSI Laffey rates post-

Salazar . . . because D.C. law itself mandates the Court use LSI Laffey rates.”). Plaintiff presents

several reasons why the LSI Laffey rates should also apply to plaintiff’s claims under the FLSA.

       Defendants, by contrast, argue that because some of plaintiff’s work was conducted in

Maryland, and therefore part of his claim is operable only under the FLSA and Maryland state

law, the LSI Laffey rates should not be applied to the entirety of the work performed. Defs.’

Response at 11. They urge that a lower rate should be adopted in line with the market rates in

Maryland, where plaintiff’s counsel’s practice is located, as opposed to the rates in D.C., where

this claim was brought. Id. at 11–13.

       Defendants’ argument that the statutory mandate in the DCMWRA and DCWPCL should

not apply is without merit. As both parties have recognized throughout this litigation, the

majority of plaintiff’s uncompensated work was performed in the District of Columbia, with

83% of the damages in the settlement attributed to claims brought under D.C. statutes that

mandate application of the LSI Laffey rates. See Settlement Demand Letter at 2. As plaintiff

points out, segregating counsel’s time between that spent pursuing claims based on D.C. law and

that spent on claims under the FLSA and Maryland law would be a time-consuming but fruitless

effort. This is especially true in this case, where the only work plaintiff’s counsel conducted in

                                                10
pursuit of plaintiff’s claim was writing and filing a complaint, in D.C., calculating unpaid wages,

and communicating with defendants’ counsel about settlement. This work was all conducted in

joint pursuit of both the D.C. and Maryland unpaid wages.

       Plaintiff analogizes his circumstances to those in Serrano v. Chicken-Out Inc., where

then-Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson did not segregate the total hours spent on the case into time

spent on D.C. and Maryland claims, but instead adopted the LSI Laffey rates for all of counsel’s

time spent jointly pursuing claims under the FLSA and D.C. and Maryland law. 209 F. Supp. 3d

at 197–98. Application of the LSI Laffey rates is also appropriate here. Due to the nature of the

settlement, the full amount of time spent by plaintiff’s counsel on this case may be reasonably

attributed to the claims under D.C. law, which require the use of the LSI Laffey rates.

       B.      Hours Billed

       Defendants argue that the hours billed by plaintiff are unreasonable and not a fair

representation of the time spent by plaintiff’s counsel on this case. Defs.’ Response at 7–10.

Plaintiff counters by pointing to the fee statement attached to his motion for attorneys’ fees and

arguing that defendants have not met their burden to overcome the presumption that the hours

reported by plaintiff are reasonable. Pl.’s Reply at 8–12.

       “Attorneys who anticipate making a fee application must maintain contemporaneous,

complete and standardized time records which accurately reflect the work done by each

attorney.” Concerned Veterans, 675 F.2d at 1327. Plaintiff’s counsel here claims that all

timekeepers kept contemporaneous records of their work on this case. Suvita Melehy Decl. ¶ 11.

They also claim that they “no-charged” $4,577.40 worth of time spent on this case. Id.

       In formulating a fee request under a fee shifting statute, attorneys are also obligated to

reduce fees for work that is duplicative or unproductive. “In the private sector, ‘billing

judgment’ is an important component in fee setting. It is no less important here. Hours that are
                                                 11
not properly billed to one’s client also are not properly billed to one’s adversary pursuant to

statutory authority.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983) (quoting Copeland v.

Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 891 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (en banc) (emphasis in original)). Defendants

identify several entries that they claim are duplicative, where multiple timekeepers charged for

discussing the same work. Defs.’ Response at 9. Defendants also argue that it was improper for

plaintiff’s counsel to have partners bill time for work that paralegals could have done, and to bill

for “clerical” tasks. Id. at 9–10. As noted by the defendants, plaintiff’s counsel was previously

admonished for billing for such tasks. See Molina v. KP Stoneymill Inc., No. GLS-19-3123,

2021 WL 2805838 (D. Md. July 6, 2021). Defendants insist that plaintiff’s fees should be

decreased for each of these reasons.

       Plaintiff concedes that some time entries initially included in his request are indeed not

compensable, but otherwise insists that this Court owes deference to plaintiff’s counsel on the

subjective determination that each of the hours billed was necessary to conduct the work on

behalf of plaintiff. See Pl.’s Reply at 8–12; Pl.’s Mot. at 11–12 (citing Concerned Veterans, 675

F.2d at 1338 (Tamm, J., concurring)). Plaintiff also interprets the DCMWRA to prohibit a court

from reducing the hours compensated in a fee award to less than the hours actually expended,

“except upon clear and convincing evidence that the reduction will serve the remedial purposes

of this law.” Pl.’s Mot. at 12 (citing D.C. Code § 32-1308(b)(2)).

       If a plaintiff requesting attorneys’ fees makes a reasonable showing of the hours

expended in litigation, it is defendants’ obligation to identify specific time entries that should not

be compensated. Concerned Veterans, 675 F.2d at 1337–38 (Tamm, J., concurring); Bode &

Grenier, L.L.P. v. Knight, 31 F. Supp. 3d 111, 122 (D.D.C. 2014); Citizens for Responsibility &

Ethics in Wash. v. FEC, No. 11-cv-95, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124091, at *42–43 (D.D.C. 2014).

                                                 12
Here, defendants have described in detail why the overall request for attorneys’ fees is excessive,

but have not challenged each individual entry to prove precisely which hours should and should

not be compensated. Defendants point to some entries as duplicative as non-compensable

“clerical” work, but seem to use each of these entries illustratively, stating that the improper

entries “include, but may not be limited to” those identified and that the entries identified reflect

only “several instances” of error. Defs.’ Response at 9.

       A determination that an individual time entry is “not reasonably necessary” to the

litigation “turns on so many subjective factors that it seldom should be the basis for reduction of

an attorney fee.” Jacquette v. Black Hawk Cnty., 710 F.2d 455, 460 (8th Cir. 1983). Courts

should not endeavor to nit-pick times entries of a party petitioning for fees. Concerned Veterans,

675 F.2d at 1338 (Tamm, J., concurring). Rather than evaluating each time entry in plaintiff’s

fee statement at this stage for whether it should be compensated, defendants’ objections to the

time spent by plaintiff’s counsel on this case will instead be taken into account in the

determination of whether an adjustment should be applied to the fees as calculated.

       C.      Application of Multipliers or Adjustments

       In the third step of determining reasonable fees under a fee-shifting statute, the court

must “use multipliers as ‘warranted.’” Salazar, 809 F.3d at 61 (D.C. Cir. 2015). These

multipliers are used to ensure the reasonableness of a fee award, after the lodestar approach has

been applied. Martini v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Assoc., 977 F. Supp. 482, 484–85 (D.D.C. 1997).

The parties hotly contest whether adjustments are warranted here, but the defendants are correct

that a significant adjustment is necessary to reach a reasonable fee award in this case.

       Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees includes $23,781.20 claimed solely for the

preparation of the fee petition and fees accrued in litigating the fee award. See Pl.’s Second

Supp. at 5; Pl.’s Mot., Ex. A, Summary of Attorneys’ Fees at 1, ECF No. 10-2. “‘[F]ees on fees
                                                 13
must be reasonable,” and courts “have an ‘obligation to scrutinize the hours spent preparing the

fee petitions to insure [sic] that the total is reasonable and that it does not represent a windfall for

the attorneys.’” Boehner v. McDermott, 541 F. Supp. 2d 310, 325 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Noxell

Corp. v. Firehouse No. 1 Bar-B-Que Rest., 771 F.2d 521, 528 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).

        Here, plaintiff’s counsel has turned a simple, straightforward unpaid wages claim that

was resolved in weeks into a major fee generator, with the amount requested just for fees-on-fees

equal to almost twenty times that of the wages initially in dispute. Indeed, absent plaintiff’s

counsel’s excessive requests for attorneys’ fees in this otherwise simple case, with a completely

uncontested underlying claim, this suit would have been settled in December 2021, nearly two

years ago. Plaintiff’s counsel insists that defendants are to blame for this delay, due to their

purported unwillingness to negotiate fees, but this placement of blame is wholly unwarranted

when plaintiff’s counsel’s own unreasonable opening demand for attorneys’ fees is the obstacle

that necessitated litigation of this issue. Plaintiff’s counsel first demanded $25,000 in fees, at a

point when the only meaningful work they had completed to advance their client’s interests was

filing the complaint, calculating plaintiff’s unpaid wages, and communicating the settlement

demand with defense counsel, who had already made clear that defendants planned to settle

plaintiff’s claim as quickly as possible by paying the full amount to which plaintiff claimed

entitlement. Defs.’ Response at 4–5.

        Awarding fees to plaintiff’s counsel anywhere close to their demand would put this Court

in the position of approving their conduct in drawing this litigation out more than an additional

year in pursuit of only their own pecuniary gain. Indeed, Judge Henderson on the D.C. Circuit

has noted that she would impose sanctions on counsel who request excessive fees, particularly

when counsel “spent more time working on fee matters than on tasks essential to [the client’s]

                                                  14
claim.” Baylor I, 857 F.3d at 959 (Henderson, J., concurring). In that case, the “district court

said of the fee request that ‘the tail [is] wagging the dog,” and counsel had “lost sight of the real

party in interest.” Id. at 959–60 (alteration in original). Plaintiff’s counsel in this case has

certainly lost sight of the real party in interest, namely, plaintiff. The parties agreed in December

2021 that defendants would pay plaintiff $4,379, and yet he has waited two years since then for

resolution of this case, due in large part to the demands of his own counsel. Indeed, plaintiff’s

counsel rejected defendants’ second settlement offer—offering plaintiff the full amount of

overtime wages and liquidated damages he claimed—before even communicating that offer to

their client, solely because they were dissatisfied with defendants’ offer on fees. See Burton Aff.

¶¶ 4–5. The $23,781.20 in fees and $124.17 in costs accumulated solely in the pursuit of

advancing what was already an unreasonable request for attorneys’ fees will thus not be included

in the fee award, under this Court’s broad discretion.

        Once the attorneys’ fees claimed for work on the instant fee motion are subtracted from

plaintiff’s fee request, $26,352.30 in requested fees remain. This amount is also unreasonable to

award for several reasons, described below, so a multiplier should apply. For the following

reasons, plaintiff will be awarded $9,000 in attorneys’ fees, corresponding to approximately one

third of the fees requested in this case, and $500 in costs.

        First, as described in the declarations submitted with defendants’ Response in Opposition

to plaintiff’s motion and confirmed by plaintiff’s own summary of attorneys’ fees, this case was

essentially over as soon as it started, at least as to the underlying claim. Defendants’ counsel

reached out to plaintiff’s counsel only sixteen days after the complaint was filed, “to indicate a

willingness to resolve the matter[,] . . . waive service of process and further indicate[] that

Telligent was willing to provide whatever informal discovery was necessary in order to reach

                                                  15
resolution and limit any applicable attorneys’ fees.” Mourges Aff. ¶ 5. Six days later, on

November 11, 2021, defense counsel tendered 53 pages of payroll records requested by plaintiff,

along with a settlement offer based on Telligent’s calculation of plaintiff’s unpaid overtime

wages. Id. at ¶ 8.

       Defense counsel took mere days to calculate the unpaid wages owed to plaintiff and

formulate a settlement offer. Yet, once armed with the same payroll data, provided by

defendants through informal discovery, plaintiff’s counsel took weeks to continue investigating

plaintiff’s claim—in addition to whatever investigation they purportedly conducted before the

filing of the complaint, for which they are claiming $5,668.30 in fees—and recalculate the

unpaid wages on their own. See id. at ¶ 13. Defendants also argue that plaintiff’s counsel did

not quickly communicate the settlement offer “to Mr. Munoz as all attorneys are ethically

obligated to do.” Defs’ Response at 3; see also id. at 14 (“noticeably absent from [counsel’s]

time entries is any communication whatsoever between Mr. Munoz and Ms. Aguilar conveying

that offer”). Plaintiff’s counsel vehemently denies this allegation, stating that it is “patently false

with a capital ‘P’,” but plaintiff’s counsel’s own timesheet records indicate that they did not

communicate the offer to plaintiff for at least seven days after it was made (because plaintiff’s

counsel did not communicate with plaintiff at all for seven days after the settlement offer was

received). See Pl.’s Reply at 6. This series of events supports defendants’ claim that they

“sought to avoid the unnecessary accumulation of exorbitant attorneys’ fees by seeking a quick

and quite favorable resolution for Plaintiff, but [were] delayed at every turn by [p]laintiff’s

counsel.” Defs.’ Response at 1. These apparent delay tactics from plaintiff’s counsel are one

reason why a downward adjustment would be appropriate in fashioning plaintiff’s fee award.

                                                  16
       Plaintiff’s counsel delay and lack of transparency in providing detail about their time

entries also contribute to the need for a downward adjustment here. When plaintiff’s counsel

first requested $25,000, plus future attorneys’ fees, along with their original settlement demand,

they provided no records supporting that figure to explain how such a significant amount of fees

could have accrued in only the first few weeks of the case. See Settlement Demand Letter at 2.

The next day, defendants’ counsel reasonably requested a breakdown of the hours spent.

Mourges Aff. ¶ 14. Six days later, plaintiff’s counsel responded to say that they could not

provide a breakdown of the time worked and that “this would take considerable time.” Mourges

Aff. ¶ 18. After another round of settlement offers, plaintiff’s counsel again indicated “that it

would be difficult to provide a more detailed breakdown of time billed, and that if required to

provide those documents, it would increase the settlement demand.” Defs.’ Response at 6.

These statement to defendants during settlement negotiations conflict with plaintiff’s counsel’s

assurance to this Court that “[a]ll timekeepers keep track of time with time and billing software

. . . contemporaneously with the expenditure of time in accordance with the Firm’s policies.”

Suvita Melehy Decl. ¶ 11. Plaintiff’s counsel’s inability to produce timekeeping records

efficiently casts doubt on whether contemporaneous time records were actually kept in this case.

        A fee statement was not provided to defendants until January 28, 2022, almost two

months after this statement was first requested, Burton Aff. ¶¶ 12–13, although plaintiff’s

counsel’s time entries indicate that this information was first downloaded much earlier, on

December 17, 2021, Summary of Attorneys’ Fees at 5 (showing a time entry dated December 17,

2021, when Suvita Melehy “Download[ed] information regarding time entries made by time

keeper as requested by Defendants for their consideration in effort to settle the case.”). Whether

the delay in providing information on counsel’s time entries was due to the lack of available data

                                                 17
from contemporaneous entries or from purposeful delay to increase the fee demand, it again

contributes to the need for a downward adjustment to arrive at a reasonable fee award here.

       As defendants point out, plaintiff’s fee request claims compensation for time spent on

non-compensable “clerical” tasks, such as adding deadlines to their calendar and backing up their

client’s phone data for potential discovery purposes. Defs.’ Response at 9–10; see also Two Men

& A Truck/Int’l, Inc. v. A. Mover, Inc., 128 F. Supp. 3d 919, 929–30 (E.D. Va. 2015) (finding

that clerical tasks include “collating and filing documents with the court, issuing summonses,

scanning and mailing documents, reviewing files for information, printing pleadings and

preparing sets of orders, document organization, creating notebooks or files and updating

attorneys’ calendars, assembling binders, emailing documents or logistical telephone calls with

the clerk’s office”) (citations omitted). This behavior is especially probative of the need for a

downward adjustment in this case because counsel is a “repeat offender.” Baylor I, 857 F.3d at

955 (Henderson, J., concurring). Plaintiff’s counsel has been personally admonished for

claiming time for such work in prior cases. Molina v. KO Stoneymill, Inc., No. GLS-19-3123,

2021 WL 2805838, at *6 (D. Md. July 6, 2021) (holding that plaintiff’s counsel’s time entries

“‘preparing the complaint package,’ and ‘calendaring deadlines,’ and ‘preparing documents for

mediation’ . . . are non-compensable forms of clerical work that have been stricken.”). Plaintiff’s

counsel’s inclusion of non-compensable clerical time entries in their fee request further confirms

a need for a downward adjustment of the fee award in this case, especially because plaintiff’s

counsel has been notified of the improper nature of these requests in previous cases.

       Lastly, a comparison between the damages awarded to the plaintiff in the settlement

agreement and the attorneys’ fees requested by counsel supports the application of a modifier or

adjustment here. While a fee award should not be reduced solely because the fee total exceeds

                                                 18
the amount of damages awarded, courts often consider the magnitude of a fee award in

comparison to the damages won in an underlying claim. See Williams, 225 F.3d at 746 (“Under

settled law, [a litigant] may recover fees only for work related to the claim on which he

prevailed, and the fees awarded on that claim must be reasonable in relation to the success

achieved.”); Eley v. Stadium Group, LLC, 236 F. Supp. 3d 59, 65 (D.D.C. 2017) (noting that “the

proposed fee award represents approximately 37% of the total recovery” and finding the

proposed fees reasonable); Sarceno v. Choi, 78 F. Supp. 3d 446, 449–52 (D.D.C. 2015)

(approving a settlement where the agree upon attorneys’ fee award was less than fifty percent of

the total settlement amount, but only thirty-six percent of the attorneys’ fees actually incurred by

the plaintiffs). Here, if plaintiff’s counsel were to be awarded the full amount of attorneys’ fees

requested, the fee award itself would comprise of more than 92% of the total recovery. As the

defendants have argued, the “overall facts and circumstances simply do not support a fee award

of that magnitude in this case.” Defs.’ Response at 15. Awarding 92% of the total recovery in

this case to plaintiff’s counsel would be patently unreasonable, when the same counsel has drawn

out this litigation for almost two additional years, to the potential detriment of their own client.

       In Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Reilly, the D.C. Circuit awarded plaintiff’s

attorneys approximately one third of the fees petitioned for, after denying all fees for “intolerably

excessive time entries” and making further downward adjustments. 1 F.3d at 1255. An award

here of $9,000 in attorneys’ fees—constituting approximately one third of the fees requested for

time spent litigating the underlying claim—would be similarly reasonable in this case.

       There is also doubt as to whether each of plaintiff’s claimed costs was submitted in good

faith and should be compensated. For example, plaintiff’s counsel requests $10 in payment for

“face masks for in office meetings.” Pl.’s Mot., Ex. G, Record of Expenses at 1, ECF No. 10-8.

                                                  19
Seeking reimbursement from defendants for an item that is part of plaintiff’s counsel’s personal

attire and office safety protocol is simply unacceptable. To ensure a reasonable award as to the

costs in this case and “discourage [plaintiff’s counsel] from submitting an excessive request,”

Reilly, 1 F.3d at 1258, again in the future, the costs requested will be adjusted downwards to

$500, from the amount of $635.44 requested in the plaintiff’s initial fee petition in this case.

Record of Expenses at 1.

IV.    CONCLUSION

       For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees is granted in part, and

defendants must remit to plaintiff $9,500 to cover his attorneys’ fees and costs. This sum

constitutes the reasonable fee accrued in pursuit of plaintiff’s claims under the DCWPCA,

DCMWRA, and FLSA, after consideration of the exhibits and declarations submitted by both

parties, the damages agreed upon as to the underlying claims, the procedural history of this

dispute, and the conduct of both plaintiff’s and defendants’ counsel in negotiating this fee award.

       An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be entered contemporaneously.

       Date: October 2, 2023
                                                      __________________________
                                                      BERYL A. HOWELL
                                                      United States District Judge

                                                 20