Nyarko v. M&A Projects Restoration Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NYARKO.ETAL,

Plaintiffs, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

-against- 18-CV-05194 (ST)

M&A RESTORATION & PROJECT, ET AL.,

Defendants.

nen eK

TISCIONE, United States Magistrate Judge:

Malik Nyarko (“Nyarko”) and Bobakary Jaiteh (“Jaiteh”), in their individual capacities and

on behalf of others similarly situated (together, “Plaintiffs”), commenced this action against

M&A Projects Restoration Inc. (“M&A”), M&A Projects Inc., and Bogdan Malinowski

(“Malinowski”) (together, “Defendants”) on September 14, 2018. Plaintiffs allege Defendants

violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., as

well as New York Labor Law (““NYLL”) Article 19, § 650, et seq., and that Defendants engaged

in fraudulent reporting on Plaintiffs’ tax forms. Eventually, the Parties reached a settlement, and

on February 28, 2024, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for the settlement

agreement’s final approval.

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to recover attorneys’ fees and costs as a portion of

the settlement. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for

attorneys’ fees. The Court awards $742,500.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

BACKGROUND

This case’s underlying factual allegations were set forth in the Court’s prior opinion on the

motion to proceed anonymously. See Nyarko v. M&A Projects Restoration Inc., No. 18-CV-05194

-|-

(FB) (ST), 2021 WL 4755602, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 13, 2021), report and recommendation

adopted, 2021 WL 4472618 (E.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2021).

To summarize the relevant procedural history, Plaintiffs commenced this action against

Defendants on September 14, 2018. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1. Eventually, the Parties

reached a settlement agreement, which the Court preliminarily approved on October 18, 2024. See

Minute Entry, dated October 21, 2024, ECF No. 160. On February 28, 2025, the Court approved

the final settlement agreement, finding that the agreement was fair and reasonable under Cheeks

v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015), and otherwise satisfied the factors

set forth in Wolinsky v. Scholastic Inc., 900 F. Supp. 2d 332, 335-36 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). See Minute

Order, dated February 28, 2025, ECF No. 175.

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, and Anderson Dodson, P.C. (together “Class Counsel’), seek

a total of $742,500.00 in attorneys’ fees out of a settlement fund of $2,250,000.00. The Settlement

agreement allows for Class Counsel to be reimbursed for attorney’s fees and costs from the

settlement fund, but the amount must not exceed one-third of the settlement amount. Settlement

Agreement at 14, ECF 159-2.

LEGAL STANDARD

A court may calculate a reasonable attorney’s fee either by awarding a percentage of the

settlement or by determining the lodestar amount. Ying v. All-Ways Forwarding of N.Y. Inc., No.

20-CV-6242 (ENV) (MMH), 2025 WL 968586, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2025). A court

applying either method should consider the following, so-called “Goldberger factors”: “(1) the

time and labor expended by counsel; (2) the magnitude and complexities of the litigation; (3) the

risk of the litigation ...; (4) the quality of representation; (5) the requested fee in relation to the

-2-

settlement; and (6) public policy considerations.” Goldberger v. Integrated Res., Inc., 209 F.3d 43,

50 (2d Cir. 2000).

DISCUSSION

I. Percentage of Recovery

Courts in this Circuit typically approve fee awards representing one-third of the total

recovery in collective actions. See Flores v. CGI Inc., No. 22-CV-350 (KHP), 2022 WL 13804077

at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2022) (collecting cases). Class Counsel’s request of $742,500.00 out of

a settlement fund of $2,250,000.00 represents 33% of total recovery and is therefore reasonable.

See Ying, 2025 WL 968586, at *14 (citing Schutter v. Tarena Int'l, Inc., No. 21-CV-3502 (PKC),

2024 WL 4118465, at *13 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 9, 2024)).

II. Goldberger Factors

The majority of the Goldberger factors further favor approval of the attorneys’ fees.

First, the time and labor expended by counsel favors approval of fees. Class Counsel has

spent significant effort to achieve settlement by thoroughly investigating the claims and defenses,

reviewing and analyzing comprehensive wage and hour records, engaging in private mediation,

and conducting settlement discussions with opposing counsel. See Ambinder, Dec. Supp. at 45-6;

Dodson, Dec. Supp. at 96, 8, 26-68. According to Class Counsel’s submission, Class Counsel and

counsel’s support staff, have spent “more than 2,497.62 hours prosecuting this case through

settlement”, which does not include future hours working on settlement distribution. Pl’s. Mem.

Supp. at 5. Accordingly, the first factor supports the reasonableness of the requested fees.

Second, the magnitude and complexity of FLSA cases also favor approval. “FLSA claims

typically involve complex mixed questions of fact and law”. Beckman v. KeyBank, N.A., 293

F.R.D. 467, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The most complex type of FLSA case is the “‘hybrid’ action

-3-

brought here, where state wage and hour violations are brought as an ‘opt out’ class action Pursuant

to Rule 23 in the same action as the FLSA ‘opt in’ collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §

216(b).” Ying, 2025 WL 968586, at *14 (citing Viafara v. MCIZ Corp., No. 12 CIV. 7452 (RLE),

2014 WL 1777438, at *11 (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 2014)). Thus, the second factor also favors approval

of attorney’s fees.

Third, this does not appear to have been a particularly risky litigation. In most cases,

obligations under the FLSA and NYLL are relatively clear, and liability turns on factual issues.

There was no dispute that Defendants owed sums to Plaintiffs. Def’s. Mem. Supp. at 18.

Defendants did not assert affirmative defenses, deny material allegations, or oppose Plaintiffs

motion for settlement. See generally Compl. Class Counsel argues the litigation was risky

because they took the case on a contingency. Pl’s. Mem. Supp. at 6-7. However, contingency risk

is not the exclusive factor courts should consider in their determination of fees. See Viafara, 2014

WL 1777438, at *11 (citing In re Dreyfus Aggressive Growth Mut. Fund Litig., No. 98 CV 4318

(HB), 2001 WL 709262, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2001)). Therefore, the risk of litigation does

not favor approval of attorney’s fees.

Fourth, as to the quality of representation, Class Counsel’s firm(s), Anderson Dodson, P.C.,

and Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, have extensive experience litigating collective wage and hour

litigation in this district. Pl’s. Mem. Supp. at 7. Lead counsel has significant experience with

wage and hour actions, with Llyod Ambinder litigating “S00 wage and hour cases”, and Penn

Dodson noting she has been working in employment law, in various capacities, since 1994.

Ambinder Dec. Supp. at 7; Dodson Dec. Supp. at § 5-9. In both their submissions and

appearances before this Court, Class Counsel has acted professionally and competently.

Accordingly, the quality of representation favors approval of a fee award.

-4-

Finally, the factor of public policy also favors approval of attorneys’ fees because “FLSA

and NYLL are remedial statutes designed to protect the wages of workers.” Ying, 2025 WL

968586, at *14 (citing Viafara, 2014 WL 1777438, at *13). Further, class actions safeguard public

rights by ensuring plaintiffs have a realistic day in court, one they may not have had they brought

claims individually. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. at 809 (1985).

Thus, considering all of the Goldberger factors, the Court finds that the award of

$742,500.00 in attorneys’ fees is reasonable.

Il. Lodestar Cross-Check

Although the general trend in the Second Circuit is toward the percentage-of-recovery

method, the lodestar remains a useful “cross check” on the reasonableness of the requested

percentage. Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 50.

The lodestar is “the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours

required by the case.” Millea v. Metro-N. R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011); see Rubin v.

HSBC Bank USA, NA, 763 F. Supp. 3d 233, 238 (E.D.N.Y. 2025). A court must first determine a

reasonable hourly rate for the legal services performed, and then determine the reasonableness of

the hours expended by counsel. See Metro-N.R.Co., 658 F.3d at 166. Here, Class Counsel spent

about 2,497.62 attorney and support staff hours on this litigation, leading to a lodestar calculation

of $464,330.58. Pl’s. Mem. Supp. at 14. This amounts to a lodestar multiplier of 1.599, which is

lower than the lodestar multipliers typically awarded in this Circuit. Id.; see Beckman, 293 F.R.D.

at 481-82 (collecting cases showing courts awarding lodestar multipliers between two and eight).

However, as discussed below, the record shows that some of the requested hourly rates and

hours should be reduced. Accordingly, the Court will calculate its own lodestar and use that

amount in determining a reasonable multiplier.

-5-

A. Hourly Rate

To determine a reasonable hourly rate, courts consider the market rates prevailing in the

district for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation.

Ying, 2025 WL 968586, at *15. In the Eastern District, reasonable rates currently range from

““$450-$650 for partners, $300-$450 for senior associates, $150-$300 for junior associates, and

$100-$150 for paralegals.” Rubin, 763 F. Supp. 3d at 244.

Class Counsels’ hourly rates for partners and associates are reasonable. Class Counsel

requests that partner Penn Dodson be awarded an hourly rate of $450, Christoper Anderson $475,

Lloyd Ambinder $550, Michele Moreno $350, and Leonor Coyle $450. Ambinder. Dec. Supp. at

7; Dodson. Dec. Supp. at {| 69. Class Counsel further requests that associate Joel Goldenberg,

Jenny Brejit, and Paige Piazza, be awarded an hourly rate of $275. Ambinder. Dec. Supp. at 7.

These rates are consistent with the current market rates prevailing in the district. Rubin, 763 F.

Supp. 3d at 244. Moreover, Class Counsel has submitted sufficient biographical information

regarding each individual’s background, education, and experience demonstrating these rates are

reasonable. See Ambinder. Dec. Supp; Dodson. Dec. Supp. Thus, the hourly rates for partners and

associates are reasonable.

Defendants contest the hourly rates of Class Counsel’s legal support staff. Def’s. Dec.

Opp. at 7-11. This Court agrees that some of Class Counsel’s hourly rates for support staff are

high. In this District, reasonable hourly rates for legal support staff range from $100-$150. Rubin,

763 F. Supp. 3d 244.

Class Counsel requests that paralegal Ana Valereio be awarded an hourly rate of $125, Ines

Cruz $125, Callyn Carter $125, Jess Valez $175, Tara Hodges $175, Lucy Espinal $195, Frankie

-6-

Brown $150-$195!, and Jessica Balint $195. Dodson Billing Entries, ECF 161-2. Class Counsel

further requests that law clerk Will Castelli be awarded a rate of $200-$195. Id. The hourly rates

for Valez, Hodges, Espinal, Brown, Balint, and Castelli are higher than those typically awarded

for legal support staff. See Rubin, 763 F. Supp. 3d 244 (holding the reasonable hourly rates for

legal support staff are $100-$150); Escobar v. Mahopac Food Corp., No. 19-CV-00510 (FB)

(IRC), 2025 WL 934906, at *17 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2025) (“Courts in this District have held

reasonable hourly rates in FLSA cases to be . . . $60-$80 for legal support staff.”). Moreover, the

biographical information provided by Class Counsel does not present any argument explaining

why the higher rates are reasonable. See Dodson. Dec. Supp. □□ 14-25. ; Gesualdi v. Bestech

Transport, LLC, No. 14-CV-1110 JS) (ARL), 2022 WL 866853, at *3-4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23,

2022) (noting it is the moving party’s burden to provide the Court with biographical information

to support the reasonableness of the rates); Cabrera v. Schafer, No. CV-12-6323 (ADS) (AKT),

2017 WL 9512409, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2017) (“[S]hort [biographical] descriptions provide

the Court with a very generalized view of the asserted experience” allowing the Court to use its

discretion when setting a reasonable hourly rate). Regarding Will Castelli, Class Counsel fails

to provide any biographical information whatsoever. Dodson. Dec. Supp. 4] 14-25; see Geusaldi,

2022 WL 866853, at *3-4; Cabrera, 2017 WL 9512409, at *11. Thus, the Court reduces all

paralegal and law clerk hourly rates to $125, consistent with the prevailing market rates in this

District. Rubin, 763 F. Supp. 3d 244.

Class Counsel requests data entry associates be awarded a rate of $175, and forensic

accountants $290. CITE. However, the biographical information provided does not justify a

' Frankie Brown’s hourly rate is inconsistent. Brown has billed numerous hours at either a rate of $150, $175, or

$195. Dodson Billing Entries, ECF 161-2. No other paralegal, or legal support staff, bills at different hourly rates.

Class Counsel fails to account for why Brown’s hourly rate changed, or why Class Counsel should be awarded the

higher rate.

-7-

higher billing rate for data entry associates and forensic accountants than the rate typically awarded

for paralegals. See Missouri v. Jenkins by Agyei, 491 U.S. 274, 298 & n. 10 (1989) (describing

paralegal work, which might include “compil[ing] of statistical and financial data”); Cabrera,

2017 WL 9512409, at *11. Thus, the data entry associates’ and forensic accountants’ hourly rate

is reduced to $125.00.

Further, Class Counsel requests freelance data workers be awarded rates of $95 to $495.

Describing data entry as “drudgery”, Class Counsel hired freelance data workers on Upwork

because the work “simply would not have been feasible for the ADPC firm.” Dodson Reply at 6.

Upwork is an online platform that allows businesses and individuals to hire freelancers to complete

a variety of tasks. See Hayden Brown, About Us, https://www.upwork.com/about. Class Counsel

paid each freelancer a rate between $3 and $7, for a total of $7,095.33. Def’s. Mem. Opp. at 4.

Defendants argue Class Counsel “should recover only the actual costs it paid to [the data]

freelancers, not the marked-up rates that [Class Counsel] seeks”. Jd. This Court agrees.

Class Counsel fails to provide biographical information about the data workers, or

information showing the firm incurred any overhead costs from hiring these freelancers.”

Mahopac Food Corp., 2025 WL 934906, at *17 (collecting cases where rates were reduced

because of a lack of adequate biographical information); See Def’s. Mem. Opp. at 4 (providing

evidence the data workers were freelancers). In support of their hours, Class Counsel equates

hiring non-legal, freelance staff with contracting temporary attorneys, less costly associates, or

even contract paralegals. Dodson Reply at 3-6. Yet, Class Counsel fails to cite any cases

Class Counsel cites to Bray v. N.Y. Gypsum Floors Inc., No. 7:21-CV-2340 (AEK) as an example of this Court

awarding data workers a rate of $100. Dodson Reply at 5-6. However, in Bray, ADPC incurred overhead costs from

employing the data workers. Bray v. N.Y. Gypsum Floors Inc., No. 7:21-CV-2340 (AEK); Id. | Here, ADPC has

incurred no such costs. This is the only conclusion the Court can draw, as ADPC provided no information regarding

the freelancers.

-Q-

demonstrating an instance where the Court has awarded attorney or paralegal rates to temporary,

non-legal, staff. See e.g., Pennsylvania Pub. Sch. Emps.’ Ret. Sys. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 318

F.R.D. 19, 26 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (declining to award a rate of $350.00 for legal work performed by

legal associates that were hired temporarily); Carlson v. Xerox Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 400, 409

(D. Conn.), aff'd, 355 F. App’x 523 (2d Cir. 2009) (discussing the hourly rates of temporary legal

staff, contract attorneys); In re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 586 F. Supp. 2d 732,

783-85 (S.D. Tex. 2008) (describing the rationale for allowing attorneys to charge market rate for

contracted attorneys, law clerks, and paralegals); In re Tyco Int’l, Ltd. Multidistrict Litig., 535 F.

Supp. 2d 249, 272 (D.N.H. 2007) (holding that legal work done by contract attorneys and

paralegals are compensable at market rates as part of attorneys’ fees). Thus, Class Counsel shall

be reimbursed for the expense of the freelance data entry workers as a cost, rather than a “fee.”

See Dial Corp. v. News Corp., 317 F.R.D. 427, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (encouraging courts to treat

contractor fees as an expense).

B. Reasonable Hours Expended

Next, this Court must determine whether the hours billed were reasonable. See Metro-

N.R.Co., 658 F.3d at 166. When the lodestar is used as a cross-check, “the hours documented by

counsel need not be exhaustively scrutinized by the district court.” Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 50.

Class Counsel submits that counsel and their support staff have spent “more than 2,497.62 hours

prosecuting this case through settlement,” which does not include future hours working on

settlement distribution. However, Class Counsel erroneously includes in their calculation 1,353.6

hours of work performed by freelance data workers. The freelancers’ hours shall not be considered

for purposes of calculating the lodestar. Thus, Class Counsel’s total hours expended will be

reduced to 1,143.6.

-9-

A careful review of Class Counsel’s contemporaneous billing records shows that the hours

expended are reasonable.? Overall, the records reflect the various reasonable tasks that Class

Counsel had to complete to litigate this case and prepare for settlement. For instance, Class

Counsel engaged in communications with their clients, drafted agreements and court documents,

engaged in legal strategy, and mediation. Ambinder, Dec. Supp. at 95-6; Dodson, Dec. Supp. at

4/6, 8, 26-68. Therefore, the Court finds that Class Counsel’s number of hours expended, 1,143.6,

is reasonable.

Multiplying the reduced hourly rates and the hours expended, the Court finds that the

adjusted lodestar should be $293,256.58 as opposed to Class Counsel’s calculation of $464,330.58.

C. Costs

Class Counsel requests costs and expenses in the amount of $13,813.32 ($10,969.26

Virginia & Ambinder + $2,844.06 Anderson Dodson). Courts allow counsel to recover reasonable

out of pocket expenses. Paulino v. S & P Mini Market Corp., No. 22-CV-8724 (GWG), 2025 WL

1860266, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2025); Viafara v. MCIZ Corp., No. 12-CV-7452 (RLE), 2014

WL 17777438, at *15 (S.D.N.Y. Ap. 30, 2014). Class Counsel’s out-of-pocket expenses include

filing fees, mediation fees, LexisNexis and Westlaw fees, travel expenses, and third-party costs.

Ambinder Dec. Supp. at 7; Dodson Billing Entries at 84. The bulk of these costs were incurred

from Class Counsel’s mediation fees. See Ambinder Dec. Supp. at 7. The amount is consistent

with this Court’s experience and knowledge of the costs of mediation. See Flores, 2022 WL

13804077, at *10 (awarding costs for, inter alia, mediation fees). Accordingly, Class Counsel’s

requested costs and expenses are reasonable.

3 Defendants contest numerous billing entries where Class Counsel has “beautified” documents, heavily billed .1 and

.2 hours on the matter, and billed for purely clerical tasks like “updating contact information” and “reviewing the

matter.” Def’s. Dec. Opp. at 12-16. The Court notes this type of billing practice is questionable. However, in light of

the 1,353.6-hour reduction, the Court finds the billing entries, on the whole, reasonable.

-10-

Class Counsel’s expenditure on freelance data entry workers shall be reimbursed as a cost.

Absent any supporting documentation regarding the nature of the freelancers’ work, their

education, or experience, the Court must use its discretion in determining a reasonable cost.

Greenburger v. Roundtree, No. 17-CV-03295 (PGG) (SLC), 2020 WL 6561598, at *14(S.D.N.Y.

Jan. 16, 2020) (noting Plaintiffs must provide supporting documentation to be awarded costs);

Berenice Diego Sevilla, et al. v. Nekasa Inc, et al., No. 16-CV-2368 (AJP), 2017 WL 1185572 at

*6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017) (collecting cases where the Court has refused to award costs absent

any supporting documentation). Based on the vague information in Class Counsel’s billing entries,

it appears that these freelancers engaged in data processing, a task that e-discovery vendors

routinely provide. See 28th Highline Associates, LLC v. Iain Roache, No. 18-CV-01468 (VSB)

CKHP), 2019 WL 10632851, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2019) (reimbursing expenditures for e-

discovery vendors who processed and stored data). Thus, Class Counsel will be reimbursed the

$7,095.33 out-of-pocket expense they paid the freelancers, a sum consistent with other awards in

this Circuit. See Match Group, LLC v. Beazley Underwriting Ltd., No. 22-CV-4629 (LGS) (SLC),

2023 WL 9603886, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2023) (collecting cases where courts have awarded

e-discovery costs ranging from $13,000 to $40,000).

Accordingly, the Court awards costs in the amount of $20,908.65.

D. Applying Lodestar Multiplier

Adding together Class Counsel’s adjusted attorneys’ fees and costs ($314,164.58) and

multiplying that by the earlier lodestar multiplier of 1.599, the Court finds Class Counsel would

be entitled to $502,349.16 in attorneys’ fees and costs. However, as noted earlier, such a multiplier

is lower than the lodestar multipliers typically awarded in this Circuit. See Metro-N.R.Co., 658

F.3d at 166; see Beckman, 293 F.R.D. at 481-82 (collecting cases showing courts awarding

-ll-

lodestar multipliers between two and eight). Therefore, given the reasonability of the requested

fees in relation to the settlement fund coupled with the contingency of the litigation and that most

Goldberger factors favor Class Counsel, the Court is within its discretion to raise Class Counsel’s

lodestar multiplier to reflect their requested fee amount of $742,500.00. See Goldberger, 209 F.3d

at 47 (“[o]nce that initial computation has been made, the district court may, in its discretion,

increase the lodestar by applying a multiplier based on “other less objective factors,” such as the

risk of the litigation and the performance of the attorneys’’) (citation omitted); see also In re Telik,

Inc. Sec. Litig., 576 F. Supp. 2d 570, 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“[iJn contingent litigation, lodestar

multiples of over 4 are routinely awarded by courts.”). Therefore, the Court raises Class Counsel’s

lodestar multiplier to 2.36 (742,500.00 / 314,164.58 = 2.36) and awards Class Counsel attorneys’

fees and costs in the amount of $742,500.00.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is GRANTED. The Court

awards Class Counsel $742,500.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs.

SO ORDERED.

/s/

Steven L. Tiscione

United States Magistrate Judge

Eastern District of New York

Dated: Central Islip, New York

September 23, 2025

-12-