P.G. v. Jefferson County, New York

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.G.,

Plaintiff,

-v- 5:21-cv-388

JEFFERSON COUNTY, NEW YORK;

COLLEEN M. O’NEILL, as the Sheriff of

Jefferson County, New York; BRIAN R.

MCDERMOTT, as the Undersheriff of Jefferson

County, New York; and MARK WILSON, as

the Facility Administrator of the Jefferson

County Correctional Facility,

Defendants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES ANTONY P.F. GEMMELL, ESQ.

UNION FOUNDATION TERRY T. DING, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiff GABRIELLA M. LARIOS, ESQ.

125 Broad Street, 19th Fl. MOLLY K. BIKLEN, ESQ.

New York, New York 10004

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES TAMMIE GREGG, ESQ.

UNION NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT

Attorneys for Plaintiff

915 15th Street NW, 7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

BARCLAY DAMON LLP TERESA M. BENNETT, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendants KAYLA A. ARIAS, ESQ.

125 East Jefferson Street

Syracuse, New York 13202

DAVID N. HURD

United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER

INTRODUCTION

On September 7, 2021, this Court entered an order (the “PI Order”), Dkt.

No. 47, granting plaintiff P.G.’s motion for a preliminary injunction against

defendants Jefferson County, New York (the “County”), County Sheriff

Colleen M. O’Neill, County Undersheriff Brian R. McDermott, and County

Correctional Facility Administrator Mark Wilson (together “defendants”).

In short, P.G. sought to preliminarily enjoin defendants from interrupting

or otherwise denying him access to his prescribed methadone treatment

(“MOUD”) while he was incarcerated at Jefferson County Correctional

Facility (the “Jail”). Defendants opposed, asserting that the Jail does not

maintain a ban on methadone treatment for non-pregnant people. The Court

held oral argument and ultimately entered the PI Order.

Now, P.G. seeks to recover his fees and costs arising from this litigation.

Specifically, plaintiff seeks $153,783.45 in attorney’s fees for the work done

by his two public interest legal organizations, as well as $7,786.68 in costs.

Defendants oppose and also move for summary judgment. The motions have

been fully briefed, and the Court considers them on the basis of the parties’

submissions without oral argument.

II. DISCUSSION

As noted, P.G. seeks to recover attorney’s fees and costs associated with

his preliminary injunction. Defendants oppose and also move for summary

judgment. The Court addresses each motion in turn.

A. Plaintiff's Motion for Fees

1. Legal Standard

Both the ADA and Section 1983 authorize courts to award a “prevailing

party” reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (ADA); 42

U.S.C. § 1988(b) (Section 1983). “[T]o qualify as a prevailing party, a civil

rights plaintiff must obtain at least some relief on the merits of his claim.”

Haley v. Pataki, 106 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Farrar v. Hobby, 506

U.S. 108, 109 (1992)). A party who “receives a ... preliminary injunction but

never obtains a final judgment” is the prevailing party “if the court’s action in

granting the preliminary injunction is governed by its assessment of the

merits.” Id.

Fees are not warranted, however, if the court did not base its

determination to award interim relief on the merits. Haley, 106 F.3d at 4838.

“A determination of whether a court’s action is governed by its assessment of

the merits ‘requires close analysis of the decisional circumstances and

reasoning underlying the grant of preliminary relief.” Jd. (citation omitted).

Furthermore, if an injunction “is not clearly based on the merits, a court

should not resolve the uncertainty in favor of a finding that plaintiff

prevailed.” Id. (citation omitted). Similarly, a request for attorney’s fees may

be properly denied if a party’s success is “de minimis or technical.” LaRouche

v. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68, 72 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

“The burden rests on the party seeking attorney’s fees to submit sufficient

evidence to support the hours worked and the rates claimed.” Krause v.

Kelahan, 2022 WL 306365, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2022) (citation omitted).

Still, “the determination of fees should not result in a second major

litigation,” and in evaluating an application, “trial courts need not, and

indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants.” Id. (citation

omitted); see also Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 589 (2d Cir. 2017).

2. Discussion

P.G. requests fees in the amount of $153,783.45 and $7,786.68 in costs.

Defendants oppose, claiming that these fees are unreasonable, that plaintiff

does not qualify as a prevailing party, and that the relief this Court granted

plaintiff was de minimis.

“In awarding attorney’s fees, the district court is to determine the

‘presumptively reasonable fee, reached by multiplying a reasonable hourly

rate by the number of reasonably expended hours.’” Osterweil v. Bartlett, 92

F. Supp. 3d 14, 25 (N.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Bergerson v. N.Y. State Office of

Mental Health, 652 F.3d 277, 289 (2d Cir. 2011)).

The first component of the reasonable-fee calculation is determining a

reasonable hourly rate, or “what a reasonable, paying client would be willing

to pay.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany

& Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182, 184 (2d Cir. 2008). In

determining a reasonable hourly rate, district courts “consider[] all pertinent

factors, including the Johnson factors.” Lilly v. City of New York, 934 F.3d

222, 230 (2d Cir. 2019); see also Brooks v. Roberts, 501 F. Supp. 3d 103, 112

(N.D.N.Y. 2020).1 And the Second Circuit’s “‘forum rule’ generally requires

use of ‘the hourly rates employed in the district in which the reviewing court

sits in calculating the presumptively reasonable fee.’” Bergerson v. N.Y. State

Office of Mental Health, 652 F.3d 277, 290 (2d Cir. 2011).

Upon review, P.G. has submitted sufficient evidence supporting his

attorneys’ requested rates. The rates, which range from $165 to $300 per

hour, are consistent with those that courts in this district have awarded in

other civil rights litigations for attorneys with comparable experience levels.

See, e.g. Citizens Bank, N.A. v. Krolak, 2019 WL 3304556, at *4 (N.D.N.Y.

1 The “Johnson factors,” developed by the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express,

Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty

of the questions; (3) the level of skill required to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion

of other employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the attorney’s customary

hourly rate; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client

or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved in the case 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.

Id. at 717-19.

July 23, 2019) (awarding hourly rate of $325 for attorney with 18 years’

experience and $275 for attorney with 10 years’ experience, and noting these

were “rates in the middle end of the hourly rate range”); Moore v. Keller, 2021

WL 5493022, at *3-4 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2021) (hourly rate of $200 for

attorneys with between five and ten years’ experience and $150 for attorneys

with less than two years’ experience); Perez v. Cnty. of Rensselaer, 2021 WL

3022115, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2021) (hourly rate of $165 for recently

admitted attorney).2

The Johnson factors also support P.G.’s requested rates. Among other

things: (i) plaintiff’s counsel obtained a substantial degree of success; (ii) this

litigation involved novel and complex legal issues that no court in this district

has previously addressed; (iii) plaintiff’s counsel is highly experienced; and

(iv) this case involved significant time and labor.

P.G. has also submitted sufficient evidence supporting the hours his

attorneys worked. In evaluating the reasonableness of the hours expended

on a case, “[t]he relevant inquiry for the court ‘is not whether hindsight

vindicates an attorney’s time expenditures, but whether, at the time the work

was performed, a reasonable attorney would have engaged in similar time

2 Notably, plaintiff’s attorneys seek in-district rates at significant discounts to the rates they

ordinarily recover, see Pl’s Br. at 12.

expenditures.’” Osterweil, 92 F. Supp. 3d at 28 (quoting Grant v. Martinez,

973 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir. 1992)).

The number of hours for which P.G.’s attorneys seek compensation is

reasonable. This case has involved considerable motion practice over the past

year and a half. Specifically, this case has required plaintiff’s counsel to brief

a motion for a preliminary injunction, a motion to seal, and a motion to

supplement the complaint, each of which faced opposition from defendants.

Most notably, plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion required substantial

evidentiary showings, including declarations from several experts.

Additionally, plaintiff’s attorneys have exercised their own billing

judgment by voluntarily imposing across-the-board billing reductions of 10%,

see Dkt. No. 97-2 ¶ 8; excluding hours expended on this case by senior

attorneys, law clerks, and paralegals, id. 14-15; and excluding 58.9 billable

hours for time spent litigating discovery disputes—even though he is entitled

to seek recovery for those hours, id. 14 & n.8.

Finally, as defendants concede, Dkt. 102-4 at 19, the Court determined

P.G.’s preliminary injunction motion on the merits. Indeed, in the PI Order,

the Court considered plaintiff’s claims, evaluated his likelihood of success on

the merits, and concluded that he was likely to succeed. See P.G. v. Jefferson

Cnty., New York, 2021 WL 4059409, at *4-5 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2021).

Defendants’ attempts to reduce P.G.’s fee award by 75 percent are

unpersuasive. Beyond claiming in conclusory fashion that the fee request is

“excessive” and “well beyond what is reasonable,” defendants do little to

explain why such a substantial reduction would be necessary.3 Defendants

do not contest plaintiff’s counsel’s billing rates, billing records, or, for the

most part, the hours they worked. Failure to challenge these aspects of the

fee application counsels against defendants’ requested fee reduction. See Doe

v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 2020 WL 1274774, at *2 (D. Conn. Mar. 17, 2020)

(refusing to apply general reductions to fee award “in the absence of any

argument by Defendant regarding specific billing entries or practices”); LV v.

New York City Dep’t of Educ., 700 F. Supp. 2d 510, 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)

(declining to reduce fee award based on defendants’ “object[ion] to unspecified

‘excessive billing’”); Todaro v. Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C., 697 F. Supp. 2d

395, 402 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (refusing to “scour” attorney’s billing records to

“uncover . . . supposed abuses” without “specific reference to . . . disputed

entries”).

Moreover, defendants’ other argument—that P.G.’s counsel overstaffed

this case—ignores that many of these attorneys performed limited work and

only seek limited fees. As this Court has explained, it is not unreasonable for

3 Defendants also fail to articulate any specific objections to the costs plaintiff seeks to recover.

multiple attorneys to work on a case contemporaneously. See, e.g., Grant v.

City of Syracuse, 357 F. Supp. 3d 180, 206 (N.D.N.Y. 2019) (“[T]he use of

multiple attorneys and consultation between attorneys [is] appropriate”).

Accordingly, P.G. has met his burden of supporting the hours his

attorneys worked as well as their hourly rates. There is no basis for reducing

this award beyond the level that plaintiff’s attorneys already have through

their exercise of billing judgment.

Defendants’ remaining attempts to challenge P.G.’s fee request are

similarly futile. First, defendants contend that plaintiff is not a prevailing

party because this case is now moot. This argument fails in light of well-

established precedent. As the Second Circuit and courts in this district have

held, “a plaintiff who achieves relief, even if only interim relief, does not lose

prevailing party status is there is a later determination … that the case is

moot.” Kirk v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 644 F.3d 134, 137 n.3 (2d Cir.

2011) (citing Haley, 106 F.3d at 483; LaRouche v. Kezer, 20 F.3d 68, 75 (2d

Cir. 1994)); see also, e.g., Trudeau v. Bockstein, 2008 WL 3413903, at *3

(N.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2008) (“[A] plaintiff is entitled to prevailing party status

when he initially succeeds in obtaining a preliminary injunction,” even if “the

need for injunctive relief is mooted by subsequent developments”); N.Y. State

Chapter of Am. Coll. of Emergency Physicians v. Wing, 987 F. Supp. 127, 130

(N.D.N.Y. 1997) (“In cases involving a moot claim,” the plaintiff is the

prevailing party where “the court grants a preliminary injunction after

taking up the merits of the claim”). Indeed, courts routinely award attorney’s

fees to parties that have secured preliminary injunctions in cases that later

became moot. See, e.g., Haley, 106 F.3d at 483-84; HomeAway.com, Inc. v.

City of New York, 523 F. Supp. 3d 573, 584-85 (S.D.N.Y. 2021); Parish v.

Kosinski, 2018 WL 1475222, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2018), report and

recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1474366 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2018).

Defendants next assert that P.G. only secured de minimis or technical

relief. In support, defendants claim that they ensured his access to MOUD

treatment even before the PI Order and that on October 7, 2021—just over a

month after the PI Order—Governor Hochul signed Corrections Law § 626

into effect. In defendants’ view, then, the PI Order had only a minimal

impact on the parties’ relationship.

However, the notion that P.G. secured only de minimis or technical relief

is belied by the record. As the PI Order notes, “[d]efendants object[ed]” to

allowing plaintiff to receive his treatment at the jail on Sundays, when the

local MOUD clinic was closed. PI Order at 7. The PI Order further observed

that “the actual evidence in the record … establishes that the County does

not provide methadone to non-pregnant people” at the jail. Id. at 12.

Accordingly, when the Court ordered defendants to provide plaintiff with his

prescribed treatment on each day of his detention, it granted meaningful

relief sufficient to support the fee award that he now seeks.

Moreover, defendants’ claim that Corrections Law § 626 rendered P.G.’s

relief unmeaningful ignores that this provision did not become effective until

October 2022—months after plaintiff concluded his time in jail. See N.Y.

Correct. Law § 626 (effective Oct. 7, 2022); Dkt. No. 102-1 4 47 (“The bill...

became effective October 7, 2022”). Thus, it had no bearing on the relief that

plaintiff sought and ultimately received.

In sum, P.G. qualifies as a prevailing party in this action, and the relief he

received through the Preliminary Injunction Decision was not de minimis.

B. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants expend much effort moving for summary judgment, arguing

that P.G.’s release from custody has rendered this case moot. Plaintiff does

not dispute that this case is moot following his release. Accordingly, the

Court will dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, but declines to reach the

merits arguments that defendants also raise in their summary judgment

motion because it is well-settled that “a federal court has no authority to give

opinions about moot questions.” Dean v. Blumenthal, 577 F.3d 60, 64 (2d Cir.

2009).

Ill. CONCLUSION

Therefore, it is

11

ORDERED that

1. Plaintiff's motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff may recover $153,783.45 in attorney’s fees and $7,786.68 in

costs for a total of $161,570.13.

3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED AS MOOT;

4, The Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in the sum of $161,570.13

and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David bh

U.S. Disfrict Judge

Dated: May 15, 2023

Utica, New York.

12