Sanchez Juarez v. 156-40 Grill LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

MARCO ANTONIO SANCHEZ JUAREZ and

JANET GUTIERREZ

Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

ORDER

v. 15-CV-5081 (CBA) (LGD)

156-40 GRILL LLC d/b/a TAVERNA GREEK

GRILL, EVANGELOS POLLATOS, MARIA

KARRAS-POLLATOS, MICHAEL

SIDERAKIS, and KONSTANTINOS SIKLAS,

Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------X

LEE G. DUNST, Magistrate Judge:

The judges of the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York are extremely familiar

with the work of the attorneys of Troy Law LLC (“Troy Law”). With offices in Flushing, New

York, this law firm holds itself out as “the premier employment litigation firm in the nation” and

represents that it is “handling more than 300 cases in federal and state courts across the nation.”

Troy Law, https://troypllc.com/en/home/ (last visited May 29, 2024). Three attorneys in

particular — John Troy, Tiffany Troy, and Aaron Schweitzer — routinely appear on behalf of

this law firm in federal court. See Troy Law, https://troypllc.com/en/team-2/ (last visited May

29, 2024). However, questionable conduct by the Troy Law attorneys has not escaped the

attention of numerous judges who “‘have raised troubling concerns about the Troy Law Firm’s

performance’ in other cases in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.” Zhuang v.

Lucky Nail Spa Inc., No. 21-CV-6658 (JMA) (LGD), 2024 WL 187124, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17,

2024) (quoting Leong v. Laundry Depot, LLC, No. 19-CV-3545, 2023 WL 6226415, at *8

(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023) (collecting cases)). For example, this law firm routinely files

improper attorney fee applications seeking excessive billable rates for Mr. Troy, Ms. Troy, and

Mr. Schweitzer for excessive hours purportedly worked, and the courts routinely reduce the

amount of these awards as a result. See, e.g., ShiMing Chen et al. v. Hunan Manor Enter., Inc. et

al., No. 17 CV-802, 2024 WL 2140119, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2024) (“As to the rates

appropriate for Troy Law in this case, courts in the Southern and Eastern Districts have

recognized that Troy Law’s requested rates significantly exceed those rates normally

commanded in wage-and-hour suits. . . . [a]nd courts have balked at the sort of rates requested in

this case.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Feng v. Kelai Corp., No. 18-CV-12329,

2024 WL 1348654, at *22 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2024) (“What Mr. Troy does not reveal, however,

is that courts in the Southern and Eastern Districts repeatedly have rejected requests by his firm

for the magnitude of rates sought here.”).1

Presently before the Court is the latest improper fee application by Troy Law (including

Mr. Troy, Ms. Troy, and Mr. Schweitzer) seeking a grand total of $113,968.07 for excessive

rates and hours, as well costs and fees. See Electronic Case File Number (“ECF No.”) 139. In

light of the troubling history of excessive and improper Troy Law fee applications that have been

slashed time and again by many judges, “[i]t is clear to the Court that ‘[w]hat we’ve got here is

failure to communicate.’” New Falls Corp. v. Soni, No. 16-CV-6805 (HG) (LGD), 2022 WL

17811448, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022) (quoting Spoerer v. Kroger Specialty Pharmacy,

LLC, No. 19-CV-1216, 2020 WL 1451711 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 25, 2020)); see AFI s 100 YEARS . . .

1 For example, since the beginning of 2023, courts in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York have

ruled on at least ten motions for attorney’s fees from Troy Law. In every case, courts have reduced the attorney’s

fee award, with some reducing the requested award by more than 70%. See, e.g., Chen v. Hunan Manor Enter., Inc.,

No. 17-CV-802, 2024 WL 2140119, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2024) (reducing from $379,109.50 to $109,238.25);

Wang v. XBB, Inc., No. 18-CV-7341, 2023 WL 2614143, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023), reconsideration denied,

No. 18-CV-7341, 2024 WL 184263 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2024) (reducing from $81,929.50 to $20,856); De La Cruz

Rosas v. Just Salad 60 Third LLC, No. 18-CV-7342, 2023 WL 5423982, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2023), report and

recommendation adopted sub nom. Rosas v. Just Salad 600 Third LLC, No. 18-CV-7342, 2023 WL 5390985

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023) (reducing from $269,392.33 to $38,263.28).

100 MOVIE QUOTES, AM. FILM INST., https://www.afi.com/afis-100-years-100-movie-

quotes/ (last visited May 29, 2024) (quote from the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke). It is incumbent

on this Court to require accountability by the attorneys of Troy Law in its representations to the

judges of the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and therefore shall exercise its

“inherent powers that are governed not by rule or statute but by the control necessarily vested in

courts to manage their own affairs . . . [and as] a reasonable response to the problems and needs

confronting the court’s fair administration of justice.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016)

(internal citations and quotations omitted); see generally New Falls, 2022 WL 17811448, at *1

(in addressing a pattern of improper filings over time, the court noted that “the more things

change, the more they stay the same” and “[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned

to repeat it”) (internal citations and quotations omitted).

In light of the numerous defects in this latest fee application filing by Troy Law, the

Court grants the fee application but reduces it by approximately 65% for a total award of

$43,302.30 in fees and costs and also sua sponte directs Mr. Troy, Ms. Troy, and Mr. Schweitzer

to submit supplemental sworn attorney declarations to the Court as detailed herein.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

On August 31, 2015, Plaintiffs Marco Antonio Sanchez Juarez and Janet Gutierrez filed

their complaint against the Defendants2 alleging widespread violations of the Fair Labor

Standards Act (“FLSA”) and New York Labor Law (“NYLL”), including unpaid minimum

wages and unpaid overtime wages. See generally ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). On May 16, 2022,

2 Originally, the Defendants in this action were 156-40 Grill LLC d/b/a Taverna Greek Grill, Greek Grill

Crossbay Corp d/b/a Taverna Greek Grill, Evangelos Pollatos, Maria Karras-Pollatos, Michael Siderakis, and

Konstantinos Siklas. See generally Compl. On stipulation, the action was discontinued against Defendant Taverna

Greek Grill. See ECF No. 24.

District Judge Carol Bagley Amon conducted a two-day bench trial to determine each

Defendant’s liability under the FLSA and NYLL. See May 16, 2022 and May 17, 2022 Orders.

The only attorney from Troy Law who officially appeared at trial was Mr. Schweitzer. See ECF

No. 117-1-2 (trial transcripts). Subsequently, Judge Amon then ordered post-trial briefing on

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. See May 17, 2022 Order. On March 31, 2023,

after the parties submitted their briefing (ECF No. 117, Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact;

ECF No. 119, Defendants Michael Siderakis’s and Konstantinos Siklas’s Proposed Findings of

Fact; ECF No. 120, Defendants Maria Karras-Pollatos’s and Evangelos Pollatos’s Proposed

Findings of Fact), Judge Amon issued post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law,

concluding that Plaintiffs had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants were

“employers” for the purposes of the FLSA and NYLL. See ECF No. 124. Judge Amon then

ordered the parties to participate in a settlement conference with the undersigned. See March 31,

2023 Order.

On June 7, 2023, the undersigned held an unsuccessful settlement conference, but, while

noting that “[s]ettlement discussions [are] continuing,” ordered an update on settlement

discussions by June 28, 2023. See June 7, 2023 Order, ECF No. 133. On June 26, 2023, the

parties reported to the undersigned that they were “too far apart and unlikely to settle” and

requested that Judge Amon “rule on the damages at the Court’s earliest convenience.” ECF No.

134; June 27, 2023 Order.

On November 28, 2023, Judge Amon issued a decision on damages. See ECF No. 136.

Judge Amon awarded Plaintiff Sanchez damages totaling $168,962.04 (consisting of $84,481.02

in unpaid wages and $84,481.02 in liquidated damages) and awarded Plaintiff Gutierrez

$22,312.22 (consisting of $11,156.11 in unpaid wages and $11,156.11 in liquidated damages).

See id. at 16. After calculating pre-judgment interest, Plaintiff Sanchez’s award was set at

$247,137.03 and Plaintiff Gutierrez’s award was set at $32,913.47.3 See ECF 137. Judge Amon

also ordered Plaintiffs to file their motion for attorney’s fees within thirty days of the November

28, 2023 Order. See November 28, 2023 Order.

B. Plaintiffs’ Attorney’s Fees Motion

On December 28, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their Motion (ECF No. 139) with supporting

affidavits, declarations, and evidence (ECF No. 140) and a Memorandum of Law (ECF No. 141

(“Pl. Mem.”)). On January 2, 2024, Judge Amon ordered Defendants to respond to the Motion

within thirty days and referred the Motion to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation.

See January 2, 2024 Order. On January 29, 2024, Judge Amon referred the Motion to the

undersigned for a decision. See January 29, 2024 Order. Defendants did not respond to

Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Troy Law requests a grand total of $113,968.07—$110,239.50 in attorney’s fees and

$3,728.57 in litigation costs. See ECF No. 140 at ¶ 87 (“Troy Decl.”). Troy Law seeks

attorney’s fees for worked performed by three attorneys and four clerks as follows: John Troy,

Managing Attorney; Aaron Schweitzer, Managing Associate; George Byun, Managing

Associate; Tiffany Troy, Clerk/Translator; Preethi Kilaru, Managing Clerk; William Lou, Clerk,

and Gavin Das, Clerk. See id. ¶¶ 29, 46, 59, 73, 77, 82, 84; ECF No. 140-1 (“Legal Invoices”).

In support of its request, Troy Law provides the credentials of each person and the requested

hourly rates:

• John Troy is a 1985 LLM graduate of Dickinson School of Law. He was admitted to

practice law in New York in 1989. He seeks an hourly rate of $650.00 for 85.63 hours

for his legal work and $300.00 for 3 hours for his time travelling and performing

administrative tasks. See Troy Decl. ¶¶ 15, 29, 85.

3 Defendant Michael Siderakis filed a Notice of Appeal on December 7, 2023. See ECF No. 138.

• Aaron Schweitzer graduated from the Fordham University School of Law in 2016. He

was admitted to practice law in New Jersey in 2017 and in New York in 2018. He seeks

an hourly rate of $400.00 for 76.61 hours for his legal work and $200.00 for 3.25 hours

for his time travelling and performing administrative tasks. See id. ¶¶ 31-32, 46, 85.

• George Byun graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 2015. He was

admitted to practice law in New York in 2015. He seeks an hourly rate of $350.00 for

19.95 hours for his legal work. See id. ¶¶ 48, 59, 85.

• Tiffany Troy graduated from the Fordham University School of Law. She was admitted

to practice law in New York in 2021. She seeks an hourly rate of $200.00 for 29.22

hours for her work. See id. ¶¶ 60-61, 73, 85.

• Preethi Kilaru graduated with her LLM from Southern Methodist University Dedman

School of Law in 2017. She seeks an hourly rate of $200.00 for 9.07 hours for her non-

legal work. See id. ¶¶ 74, 77, 85.

• William Lou graduated from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law in 2016.

Mr. Lou was admitted to practice in New York in 2019. He seeks an hourly rate of

$200.00 for 31.47 hours for his pre-admission work. See id. ¶¶ 78-79, 82, 85.

• Gavin Dass recently graduated CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He seeks an

hourly rate of $150.00 for 9.67 hours for his non-legal legal work. See id. ¶¶ 83-85.

In total, Troy Law seeks fees for 267.87 hours worked on this case. See id. ¶ 85.

Additionally, Troy Law seeks litigation costs and out-of-pocket expenses including, the

fees for service of process, deposition transcripts, court reporting, travelling expenses, and an

interpreter during trial, in the amount of $3,728.57. See id. ¶ 86; ECF Nos. 140-2-10.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“In the United States, parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorney’s fees”

unless Congress has authorized the award of attorney’s fees in a statute. Buckhannon Bd. &

Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 602 (2001).

Under the FLSA, “[t]he court in such action shall . . . allow a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid

by the defendant, and costs of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Under the NYLL, “[i]n any

action instituted in the courts upon a wage claim by an employee or the commissioner in which

the employee prevails, the court shall allow such employee to recover . . . all reasonable

attorney’s fees.” N.Y. Lab Law § 198(1-a).

Where a party is entitled to fees, such an amount of fees still must be reasonable. See

Gao v. Jian Song Shi, No. 18-CV-2708, 2021 WL 1949275, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2021)

(“In evaluating requests for attorney’s fees, Courts seek to determine the presumptively

reasonable fee.”) (internal quotations omitted), report and recommendation adopted sub nom.

Bin Gao v. ABC Corp., No. 18-CV-2708, 2021 WL 1946322 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2021). In

determining the reasonableness of a fee award, courts have “broad discretion.” Ivic v. Advance

Stores Co., No. 19-CV-509, 2023 WL 6385706, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2023) (quoting

Vincent v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 651 F.3d 299, 307 (2d Cir. 2011)). Courts generally use “the

lodestar method—[taking] the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of

hours required by the case.” Div. 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union-New York Employees

Pension Fund v. D & A Bus Co., Inc., 270 F. Supp. 3d 593, 617 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (quoting Millea

v. Metro–North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011)).

To determine the reasonable hourly rate, courts generally use the prevailing rates used in

their District. See Power Up Lending Grp., LTD. v. Cardinal Energy Grp., Inc., No. 16-CV-

1545, 2023 WL 7001360, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2023) (“To determine whether an hourly rate

is reasonable, ‘a district court should generally use the prevailing hourly rates in the district

where it sits.’” (quoting Joseph v. HDMJ Rest., Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 131, 155 (E.D.N.Y.

2013))). Additionally, courts also use factors such as “the labor and skill required, the difficulty

of the legal questions, the attorney’s customary rate, the amount at stake, and awards in similar

cases.” Nimkoff v. Drabinsky, No. 17-CV-4458, 2020 WL 3806146, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. June 9,

2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-CV-4458, 2020 WL 3804458 (E.D.N.Y.

July 7, 2020).

To determine the reasonable number of hours, the party seeking the award “bears the

burden to document the hours reasonably spent by counsel, and thus must support its request by

providing contemporaneous time records reflected, for each attorney and legal assistant, the date,

the hours expended, and the nature of the work done.” Ivic, 2023 WL 6385706, at *2 (internal

quotations and citations omitted). Furthermore, it is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate the

reasonableness of the attorney’s fees it seeks. Power Up Lending Grp., 2023 WL 7001360, at *4

(“[P]laintiff retains the burden of demonstrating the reasonability of such fees.”).

III. DISCUSSION

Here, Troy Law seeks an award of $113,968.07—$110,239.50 in attorney’s fees and

$3,728.57 in litigation costs. See Troy Decl. ¶ 87. In support of its Motion, Troy Law submits

the credentials of each person who billed hours, examples of other courts awarding similar rates

(see generally id.), the Legal Invoice for the case (ECF No. 140-1), various receipts and

affidavits of service in support of its request for litigation costs (ECF Nos. 140-2-10), and a

Memorandum of Law (see ECF No. 141). For the reasons stated below, the Court grants Troy

Law’s Motion for attorney’s fees and litigation costs, but with significantly reduced rates and

reduced hours.

A. Reasonableness of Hourly Rates

Troy Law seeks the following rates for the following people: John Troy with a rate of

$650.00 per hour for legal work and $300.00 per hour for travelling and other administrative

tasks; Aaron Schweitzer with a rate of $400.00 per hour for legal work and $200.00 per hour for

travelling and other administrative tasks; George Byun with a rate of $350.00 per hour for legal

work; Tiffany Troy with a rate of $200.00 per hour; Preethi Kilaru with a rate of $200.00 per

hour; William Lou with a rate of $200.00 per hour; and Gavin Das with a rate of $150.00 per

hour. See Troy Decl. ¶¶ 29, 46, 59, 73, 77, 82, 84; ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices. The Court

finds that all these rates are unreasonable.

The prevailing hourly rates for FLSA cases within this district typically span from “$300

to $450 for partners, $200 to $300 for senior associates, $100 to $200 for junior associates, and

$70 to $100 for support staff.” See Gao v. Jian Song Shi, No. 18-CV-2708, 2021 WL 1949275,

at *18 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2021), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Bin Gao v. ABC

Corp., No. 18-CV-2708, 2021 WL 1946322 (E.D.N.Y. May 15, 2021); see also Zang v. Daxi

Sichuan, Inc., No. 18-CV-6910, 2023 WL 2305934, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2023) (adjusting

rates in FLSA case to $450 for partners, $300 for senior associates, $150 to $200 for junior

associates, and $150 for support staff); Diaz v. Rene French Cleaners, Inc., No. 20-CV-3848,

2022 WL 4646866, at *14 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No.

20-CV-3848, 2022 WL 4662247 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022) (similar rates). Thus, the rates

sought by Troy Law in this matter stand at the uppermost limit or surpass the customary rates

granted in FLSA cases in this District.

Furthermore, judges within this District have consistently discounted Troy Law’s

requested hourly rates for the same attorneys and support staff who appear in this case. See, e.g.,

Wang v. XBB, Inc., No. 18-CV-7341, 2023 WL 2614143, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023),

reconsideration denied, No. 18-CV-7341, 2024 WL 184263 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2024) (reducing

Mr. Troy’s rate from $650 to $400, Mr. Schweitzer’s rate to $200, and Ms. Kilaru’s rate to $75

following a two-day bench trial); Zang, 2023 WL 2305934, at *4 (reducing Mr. Troy’s rate from

$450 to $350, Mr. Schweitzer’s rate from $300 to $150, Ms. Troy’s rate from $150 to $100, and

Ms. Kilaru’s rate from $150 to $75); Chen v. Marvel Food Servs. LLC, No. 15-CV-6206, 2022

WL 4226098, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2022) (reducing Mr. Troy’s rate from $650 to $450 and

Mr. Schweitzer’s rate from $400 to $300 because such rates were “unsupported and higher than

the rates commonly awarded to attorneys of their experience in FLSA cases”). As evidenced by

this ample caselaw, Troy Law is no stranger to the rates typically awarded to them, and thus, the

Court finds that their requests for rates rejected as recently as last year troubling. In fact, Troy

Law has consistently been admonished for their unreasonable rates by multiple judges, and Troy

Law still does not seem to get the hint. See, e.g., Garcia v. Francis Gen. Constr. Inc., No. 20-

CV-4323, 2022 WL 2698434, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2022) (“A treatise worth of case law has

emerged about the rates and hours that Troy Law has requested. And courts have balked at the

sort of rates requested in this case.”); Panora v. Deenora Corp., No. 19-CV-7267, 2021 WL

5712119, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2021) (“Troy Law’s tarnished history compels the Court to

scrutinize its fee applications in this or any other case with special care. It also makes more

egregious any repetition of the same criticism that Troy Law has received in other cases.”).

1. John Troy

Having reviewed the cases cited by Mr. Troy where he received higher rates and

considering this Court’s review of recent cases within the District, the Court deems Mr. Troy’s

request for $650.00 per hour to be unreasonable. For example, Mr. Troy cites only two cases

where he actually was awarded over $600.00 per hour. See Blanca Sagbaciela v. Ruby Nail

Tarrytown, Inc. (New York State, Westchester County, Feb. 27, 2023, oral ruling awarding $650

per hour); Zhiqiang Lu et al. v. Golden Fortune Restaurant Inc. et al (New York State, New

York County, Apr. 27, 2022 Oral Order awarding $600 per hour). See Troy Decl. ¶ 28.

However, these were oral rulings, which the Court is thus unable to properly assess the reason

for the high rates, and, nonetheless, are from state court and not binding. Additionally, Mr. Troy

cites six cases from the Southern District of New York, that awarded rates ranging from $400.00

to $550.00, one case from the District of New Jersey, which awarded $550.00, and one

arbitration award that awarded $500.00. See id. The one case Mr. Troy cites from this District is

Junjiang Ji et al v. Jling, Inc. et al, 15-cv-4194 (SIL) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2023), which he cites for

being awarded an hourly rate of $550.00. While it is true that Mr. Troy was awarded $550.00 in

that case involving a successful two-day bench trial, not surprisingly however, his original

request in that case was for $650.00, which was denied. See id., ECF No. 140 at 8.

Significantly, Mr. Troy presents no compelling explanation or any supporting evidence

why he should be awarded a rate exceeding all the federal cases he cites. He suggests that

because the rates from five years ago were “$300–$450 per hour for partners, $200–300 per hour

for senior associates, and $100–200 per hour for junior associates,” they should increase because

the minimum wage increased in New York State from $8.00 per hour to $15.00 over that same

time period. Pl. Mem. at 3-4. However, the Court only has to go back to March of 2023 when

Mr. Troy was awarded an hourly rate of $400.00. See Wang, 2023 WL 2614143, at *4 (reducing

Mr. Troy’s rate from $650 to $400). Furthermore, the court in Wang rejected the same minimum

wage argument that is floated here:

His [Mr. Troy’s] only explanation for this steep increase is that “just as New York

State minimum wage has increased from $8.00 to $15.00 for New York City

employers with ten or more employees (an 87.5% increase) over the past five years,

the prevailing market rates and caps for partners/associates representing clients in

wage-and-hour case in the Second Circuit has increased as well.”4 (Plaintiff’s Mem.

Law Supp. Mot. Attorneys’ Fees & Costs (“Pl. Mem.”), Dkt. 60, at 4.). The Court

rejects Troy’s suggestion that there has been an increase in the prevailing rates for

experienced wage-and-hour attorneys since the end of 2018, which is when the

minimum wage for New York City—not New York State—was raised to $15. . . .

Troy cites only to a decision from this District in Sajvin v. Singh Farm Corp. in

support of this proposition, a case in which the partner received a $500 hourly rate,

and the associate received a $250 hourly rate. . . . However, the Court in Singh

Farm Corp. explained that the partner in that particular case—who was not Troy—

should receive $500 per hour because of his “experience, expertise and reputation

in this District.” See Sajvin v. Singh Farm Corp., No. 17-CV-4032 (AMD) (RER),

2018 WL 4214335, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2018), report and recommendation

4 Astonishingly, the quote in Wang from Troy’s Memorandum of Law is an exact, word-for-word quote

from his Memorandum of Law in this case. Compare Pl. Mem. at 4 with Wang, 2023 WL 2614143, at *4.

adopted, 2018 WL 4211300 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2018). As discussed further below,

the Court finds that neither Troy’s reputation generally, nor his firm’s performance

in this particular case, warrants similarly high hourly rates.

(internal citations omitted). The court in Wang further explained that “[i]ncreasing the minimum

wage paid to the least compensated members of the workforce—so that they can attempt to earn

a living wage—does not justify increasing fees to attorneys who are already well-compensated

for their work and who are not struggling simply to survive. Indeed, it is almost nonsensical, if

not offensive, to argue that an overdue increase in the minimum wage, which was the result of

legislative action, should trigger an increase in fees for attorneys, who operate in ‘a market [for

rates] that is almost entirely unregulated.’” Id. (quoting Ling Chen v. Asian Terrace Rest., Inc.,

507 F. Supp. 3d 430, 435 (E.D.N.Y. 2020)).

The Court’s assessment of the requested hourly rate confirms the unfortunate history of

Troy Law (and Mr. Troy in particular) repeatedly requesting unreasonable rates within the

District despite consistently getting rejected for making the exact same arguments. However,

considering Plaintiffs’ success at a two-day bench trial in this case (even though Mr. Troy did

not attend those proceedings), the Court will reduce the requested rates to the higher end

typically awarded in this District. Accordingly, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $400.00 for

John Troy is warranted. See Wang, 2023 WL 2614143, at *4 (awarding $400 per hour to John

Troy in an opposed motion for attorney’s fees following a two-day bench trial).

2. Aaron Schweitzer

Similarly, for the reasons above, the Court finds that the requested hourly rate of $400.00

for Aaron Schweitzer is unreasonable.

There is no compelling evidence to support giving Mr. Schweitzer an hourly rate that is

higher than that typically awarded. Similar to Mr. Troy, he cites only one case in this District

where he was awarded $400.00 per hour. See Troy Decl. ¶ 45; Junjiang Ji et al v. Jling, Inc. et

al, 15-cv-4194 (SIL) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2023). The other cases are either outside of the District,

state cases, or arbitration awards. See Troy Decl. ¶ 45. Additionally, he presents no convincing

argument why he should be awarded a rate typically awarded to partners with more experience.

However, the Court will award a higher rate than what Mr. Schweitzer was recently awarded in

Wang. See Wang, 2023 WL 2614143, at *5 (awarding a rate of $200 per hour for Mr.

Schweitzer). In Wang, Mr. Schweitzer’s last entry billed was from December 2021, which was

within his first four years of practice. See id. Therefore, the Court awarded a rate on the lower

end typically awarded to associates. See id. Here, however, a bulk of Mr. Schweitzer’s time

billed occurred after his first four years of practice, and he was the sole counsel present for the

successful two-day bench trial. See ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices, at 12-13.

Accordingly, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $300.00 for Aaron Schweitzer is

warranted. See Chen, 2022 WL 4226098, at *5 (awarding Mr. Schweitzer an hourly rate of

$300).5

3. George Byun

The Court finds that the requested hourly rate of $350.00 for George Byun is

unreasonable. Mr. Byun was admitted to practice law in New York in 2015. See Troy Decl.

¶ 48. In this case, he billed for hours worked in 2016 and 2017, which was within his first three

years of practice. See ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices, at 4-7. Thus, although he recently was

5 Additionally, John Troy and Aaron Schweitzer seek rates and hours for their “time traveling and

performing administrative tasks.” See Troy Decl. ¶¶ 29, 46. “Courts in this Circuit award attorney hours spent on

travel at only 50 percent of the attorney’s otherwise approved rate.” Lin v. Joe Japanese Buffet Rest. Inc., No. 17-

CV-3435, 2022 WL 2718584, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. June 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-CV-

3435, 2022 WL 2716487 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022) (internal quotations omitted). However, there is no precedent for

charging partner-level rates (half or full) for administrative tasks. See Wang, 2023 WL 2614143, at *7 (finding that

Mr. Troy’s time entries that reflect administrative tasks were “at best not appropriate for a partner to engage in”).

Here, there is no delineation of the time spent travelling versus time spent performing administrative tasks, as Mr.

Troy seeks 3 hours at $300.00 per hour for “Other” and Mr. Schweitzer seeks 3.25 hours at $200.00 per hour for

“Other.” See Troy Decl. ¶ 85. Because the Court cannot effectively evaluate these requests, the Court declines to

award fees to Mr. Troy and Mr. Schweitzer at those rates and hours.

awarded an hourly rate of $350.00 in Junjiang Ji et al v. Jling, Inc. et al, 15-cv-4194 (E.D.N.Y.

Mar. 2, 2023) because of his “experience and significant involvement in the litigation prior to the

original bench trial” (id., ECF No. 140 at 9), it is unreasonable here to award a rate typically

awarded to more senior associates with more than four years’ experience. See Wang, 2023 WL

2614143, at *5 (awarding junior associate $200 per hour).

Accordingly, considering all of Mr. Byun’s work occurred within three years of him

being admitted to the practice of law, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $150.00 for George

Byun is warranted. See Haifeng Xie v. Sakura Kai I Inc., No. 17-CV-7509, 2020 WL 4587473,

at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 17-CV-7509, 2020

WL 2569406 (E.D.N.Y. May 20, 2020) (awarding Mr. Byun an hourly rate of $150).

4. Tiffany Troy

The Court finds that the requested hourly rate of $200.00 for Tiffany Troy is

unreasonable. Ms. Troy was admitted to practice law in New York in 2021. See Troy Decl.

¶ 61. In this case, Ms. Troy billed for time worked before and after her admission, yet much of

her work after 2021 was for non-legal services. See ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices, at 10-13.

However, she did some legal work in preparation for the trial in 2022. See id. at 11-12.

Therefore, she should be awarded a rate commensurate with a junior attorney and thus, the Court

finds that an hourly rate of $100.00 is warranted. See Zang, 2023 WL 2305934, at *3 (awarding

Ms. Troy an hourly rate of $100).

5. Non-Attorney Work

Finally, the Court finds that the requested hourly rates of $200.00 for Preethi Kilaru and

William Lou, and $150.00 for Gavin Das are unreasonable. There is no indication that Ms.

Kilaru and Mr. Das are admitted to practice law. See Troy Decl. ¶¶ 74-77, 83-84. Additionally,

while Mr. Lou was admitted to practice in New York in 2019, all his hours billed in this case

occurred prior to 2019. See id. ¶ 82; ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices, at 5-8. Yet, keeping with

their practice of requesting rates previously and consistently denied by other courts, Troy Law

seeks rates typically awarded to junior associates for legal work for Ms. Kilaru, Mr. Lou, and

Mr. Das. As one court recently stated, requesting compensation for attorney-level rates for non-

legal work is “is misleading, if not dishonest and unethical.” Wang, 2023 WL 2614143, at *5

(“This is yet another troubling instance of Troy Law attempting to improperly inflate its

attorneys’ fees request.”).

Accordingly, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $75.00 for Ms. Kilaru, Mr. Lou, and

Mr. Das is warranted.

B. Reasonableness of Hours Worked

Regarding the hours worked, Troy Law seeks fees based on Mr. Troy’s 85.63 hours, Mr.

Schweitzer’s 76.61 hours, Mr. Byun’s 19.95 hours, Ms. Troy’s 29.22 hours, Ms. Kilaru’s 9.07

hours, Mr. Lou’s 31.47 hours, and Mr. Das’s 9.67 hours. See Troy Decl. ¶ 85. In total

(excluding the “Other” entries, see supra note 5), Troy Law billed 261.62 hours to this case from

May 24, 2015 to December 26, 2023. See Troy Decl. ¶ 85; ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices.

Courts generally agree with fee applicants’ requests when the amount of hours billed is

reasonable. See Gonzales v. Trees R US Inc., No. 14-CV-7487, 2022 WL 3045714, at *2

(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2022) (“The Court finds no reason to disturb the purported 11.6 hours the

attorneys expended in preparing the motion to enter judgment which appear reasonable.”).

However, when the number of hours billed is excessive, courts may make a blanket reduction.

See Lilly v. City of New York, 934 F.3d 222, 234 (2d Cir. 2019) (“[D]istrict courts have the legal

authority and discretion to either reduce an attorney’s hourly rate for time spent on clerical tasks

or apply an across-the-board reduction to the hours billed or total fee award to account for time

spent on clerical tasks (or block-billed time entries reflecting a mix of clerical and legal work).”).

Courts determining a reasonable number of hours billed should “exclude excessive, redundant or

otherwise unnecessary hours.” Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422, 425 (2d Cir. 1999).

“Similarly, when tasks done by attorneys are considered administrative or more appropriately

conducted by paralegals, then the rates should be adjusted accordingly.” Bozdogan v. 23 Ludlam

Fuel, Inc., No. 16-CV-1053, 2022 WL 17987044, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2022). Not

surprisingly based on its history of improper and excessive fee applications, Troy Law has often

been the subject of such blanket reductions. See, e.g., Wang, 2023 WL 2614143, at *7 (applying

a 40% reduction); Zang, 2023 WL 2305934, at *8 (applying a 30% reduction); Chen, 2022 WL

4226098, at *5 (same).

Upon reviewing Troy Law’s contemporaneous time records, this Court finds that a 40%

across-the-board reduction in hours billed is appropriate for this case. Mr. Troy billed for

performing several administrative tasks, including conferring with technical support regarding an

error opening a file (which was billed for 1 hour), and, egregiously, mailing a postcard (which

was billed for .5 hours). See ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices, at 2-3; see also Wang, 2023 WL

2614143, at *7 (“Although Troy is at liberty to decide how to use his time and manage his cases,

the Court finds that it is not appropriate, for purposes of gauging the reasonable fee award, to

assign partner-level billing rates to tasks that first- or second-year associates or, here, a non-

lawyer could easily perform.”) (internal quotations omitted). And, perhaps even more

outrageously, despite initially charging a half-rate for travelling to the courthouse in January

2017, he switched and charged a full-rate for travelling one month later in February 2017. See

ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices, at 5, 7. Additionally, the time records contain redundancies and

inefficiencies, including several sets of meetings and rounds of reviewing Defendants’ summary

judgment motion. See id. at 7.

Applying the aforementioned reduced hourly rates and the 40% reduction in the hours

billed, the Court awards attorney’s fees in the total amount of $40,150.50, broken down as

follows:

Timekeeper Reduced Hours Reduced Hourly Rate Total Amount

John Troy 51.38 $400.00 $20,552.00

(Managing Attorney)

Aaron Schweitzer 45.97 $300.00 $13,791.00

(Managing Associate)

George Byun 11.97 $150.00 $1,795.50

(Managing Associate)

Tiffany Troy 17.53 $100.00 $1,753.00

(Clerk/Translator)

Preethi Kilaru 5.44 $75.00 $408.00

(Paralegal)

William Lou 18.88 $75.00 $1,416.00

(Clerk)

Gavin Das 5.80 $75.00 $435.00

(Clark)

$40,150.50

C. Litigation Costs

Troy Law also seeks to recover litigation costs for pursuing this action. It seeks a total of

$3,728.57 for various out-of-pocket expenses including, the filing fee, fees for service of process,

postage, deposition costs, and interpretation costs associated with trial. See Pl. Mem. at 7; Troy

Decl. ¶¶ 86-87; ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices, at 14-15.

Under the FLSA and the NYLL, a successful plaintiff may recover reasonable litigation

costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(1); see also Garcia v. Pancho Villa’s of

Huntington Vill., Inc., No. 09-CV-486, 2012 WL 5305694, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2012)

(“Courts typically allow counsel to recover their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.”). Filing

fees and costs for service are appropriately reimbursable as litigation costs. See Master Grp.

Glob. Co., Ltd. v. Toner.Com Inc., No. 19-CV-6648, 2020 WL 5260581, at *15 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.

10, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-CV-6648, 2020 WL 5259057 (E.D.N.Y.

Sept. 3, 2020) (awarding costs related to the filing fee). “The fee applicant bears the burden of

adequately documenting and itemizing the costs requested.” Monge v. Glen Cove Mansion

Hosp., LLC, No. 18-CV-7229, 2020 WL 1666460, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020). “Filing fees

are recoverable without supporting documentation if verified by the docket.” Feltzin v. Union

Mall LLC, 393 F. Supp. 3d 204, 219 (E.D.N.Y. 2019). Process server fees, however, must be

supported by documentation. Id.

The filing fee of $400.00 is verified by the docket. See Dkt. 1. Additionally, Troy Law

presents adequate documentation for most of the costs it seeks. Troy Law presents receipts and

adequate documentation for the deposition transcripts (see ECF Nos. 140-4; 140-7), the audio

equipment for translation services during the trial (see ECF No. 140-10), and a fee for service of

process (see ECF No. 140-2). See Panora v. Deenora Corp., No. 19-CV-7267, 2021 WL

5712119, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2021) (awarding costs for deposition transcripts). However,

the other exhibits do not show any amount associated with the requested costs. See, e.g., ECF

Nos. 140-3; 140-6; see also John v. Demaio, No. 15-CV-6094, 2016 WL 7469862, at *12

(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2016) (“[T]he Court cannot simply take the ledger that plaintiffs’ counsel

created at face value without any additional evidence of the costs alleged therein.”), report and

recommendation adopted, No. 15-CV-6094, 2016 WL 7410656 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016). And,

the client invoice, alone, is inadequate to support an award for litigation costs. See, e.g.,

Prepared Food Photos, Inc. v. Mikey’s Famous Marinades Corp., No. 23-CV-1484, 2023 WL

4867457, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023) (“Plaintiff’s request for process server fees, however,

lacks documentary proof outside of the client invoice submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel.”).

Accordingly, subtracting the amount of costs that is not supported by documentation, the

Court will award $3,151.80 in costs. See ECF No. 140-1, Legal Invoices, at 14-15.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the undersigned awards Troy Law: (i) attorney’s fees in the

amount of $40,150.50 and (ii) litigation costs in the amount of $3,151.80, both to be paid by

Defendants. In addition, the undersigned orders all attorneys of record at Troy Law (1) to read

all cases cited in this decision and submit sworn attorney declarations confirming that they have

done so, (2) to submit a copy of this order to the judges in all cases in the Eastern and Southern

Districts of New York where Troy Law has a fee application currently pending and submit sworn

attorney declarations confirming this, and (3) to submit the aforementioned attorney declarations

to the undersigned by July 3, 2024.6

SO ORDERED:

Dated: Central Islip, New York

June 6, 2024 s/ Lee G. Dunst

LEE G. DUNST

United States Magistrate Judge

6 The undersigned declines to sua sponte impose monetary sanctions on the Troy Law attorneys for their

history of filing improper fee applications, but believes that requiring them to read the cases cited herein and

directing them advise other judges of this opinion is appropriate under these unique circumstances. See, e.g.,

Liebowitz v. Bandshell Artist Mgmt., 6 F.4th 267, 292 (2d Cir. 2021) (affirming non-monetary sanction of requiring

attorney and his law firm to file copies of the sanction order on the docket of all of the firm’s cases nationwide due

to a “pattern of misconduct before many judges of the Southern District of New York and across the country,

described at length in the district court’s opinion”); Perez v. Edwards, No. 20-CV-1359, 2023 WL 5935029, at *6

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2023) (in light of repeated non-compliance with court orders, requiring attorneys to attend

continuing legal education regarding federal practice and procedure); see also Curran v. Price, 150 F.R.D. 85, 87

(D. Md. 1993) (requiring an attorney to file a handwritten copy of a section of a treatise because “the proper purpose

of a non-monetary penalty should be to educate, especially in a case like this, where the attorney fails to grasp the

issue”).