BOON HOOI TEOH v. MANHASSET RESTAURANT LLC ROSLYN HOSPITALITY LLC GOLD COAST RESTAURANT CORP MIRACLE MILE RESTAURANT LLC WHEATLEY RESTAURANT LLC EAST MEADOW AVENUE RESTAURANT CORP 100 HOSPITALITY LLC POLL RESTAURANT GROUP INC GEORGE POLL GILLIS POLL (2025)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Troy Law, PLLC (“Troy Law,” or “Troy Law Firm”) is a regular presence in courtrooms in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, and the conduct of attorneys at that firm has been the subject of well-documented critiques by numerous judges. See, e.g., Zhuang v. Lucky Nail Spa Inc., No. 22-CV-06658, 2024 WL 187124, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2024) (noting that “courts have raised troubling concerns about the conduct of the Troy Law Firm's performance in other cases in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York”) (internal quotation omitted) (citing Leong v. Laundry Depot, LLC, No. 19-CV-03545, 2023 WL 6226415, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2023)); Panora v. Deenora Corp., No. 19-CV-7267, 2021 WL 5712119, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2021) (discussion of “Troy Law's tarnished history” including “repetition of the same criticism that Troy Law has received in other cases”).

Nearing the top of the laundry list of questionable conduct by Troy Law is their recurring filing of bloated and excessive attorney's fee applications, which are routinely slashed time and again by numerous courts. See, e.g., Sanchez v. 156-40 Grill LLC, No. 15-CV-5081, 2024 WL 2855719, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 6, 2024), report and recommendation adopted in part, vacated in part sub nom. Juarez v. 156-40 Grill LLC, No. 15-CV-5081, 2024 WL 4834313 (Nov. 20, 2024) (“[Troy Law] routinely files improper attorney fee applications seeking excessive billable rates for Mr. [John] Troy, Ms. [Tiffany] Troy, and Mr. [Aaron] Schweitzer for excessive hours purportedly worked, and the courts routinely reduce the amount of these awards as a result”); Chen v. Hunan Manor Enter., Inc., No. 17 CV-802, 2024 WL 2140119, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. May 14, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 3454751 (July 18, 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 quotations and citations omitted); Feng v. Kelai Corp., 727 F. Supp. 3d 423, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 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.”).

In light of this unfortunate history, when the undersigned is tasked with reviewing a Troy Law fee application, it brings to mind the apt expressions that “the more things change, the more they stay the same,” and “[t]hose who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” New Falls Corp. v. Soni, No. 16-CV-06805, 2022 WL 17811448, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).

In fact, it was less than one year ago that the undersigned issued a Report and Recommendation in another case detailing Troy Law's pattern of filing excessive attorney's fee applications. Sanchez, 2024 WL 2855719, at *1 n.1 (“[S]ince 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%.”). In attempting to address Troy Law's tsunami of inappropriate fee applications, the undersigned noted that imposition of monetary sanctions on Troy Law's attorneys for filing an excessive improper fee application was not warranted, but sua sponte directed those attorneys “to read the cases cited” in the undersigned's Report and Recommendation and directed Troy Law to “advise other judges of [the] opinion.” Id. at *10 n.6. Upon review of the objections by Troy Law, District Judge Carol Bagley Amon vacated the undersigned's aforementioned sua sponte order because of insufficient notice of these non-monetary sanctions, but added that “the members of the Troy Law firm would be well served professionally by studying the cases noted in Magistrate Judge Dunst's opinion.” Juarez, 2024 WL 4834313, at *3.

Judge Amon issued that decision on November 20, 2024, but Judge Amon's comments apparently fell on deaf ears at Troy Law. It was only twenty-five days later that Troy Law filed yet another attorney's fee application (this time with District Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury) with the same defects previously identified by the undersigned and other judges in the Eastern and Southern Districts. As the undersigned previously has observed about the Troy Law Firm, “[i]t is clear to the Court that ‘[w]hat we've got here is failure to communicate.’ ” New Falls Corp., 2022 WL 17811448, at *10 (citation omitted); see also Am. Film Inst., AFI's 100 YEARS․ 100 MOVIE QUOTES (last visited April 7, 2025), https://www.afi.com/afis-100-years-100-movie-quotes/ (quote from the 1967 film Cool Hand Luke).

* * * *

Plaintiff in this New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) action obtained a jury verdict and judgment against Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $184,067.52. Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) No. 94. Plaintiff's counsel Troy Law now seeks to recover attorney's fees and costs under the NYLL. ECF No. 95. Specifically, Troy Law seeks $93,764.67 in attorney's fees and $8,382.25 in costs for a total of $102,146.92. See ECF No. 96 (“Troy Dec.”) ¶ 85. Defendants oppose Troy Law's fee application, arguing that the Court should reduce Troy Law's requested award based on a variety of alleged defects in Troy Law's billing. See generally ECF No. 105. On January 7, 2025, Judge Choudhury referred Plaintiff's Motion to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. Electronic Order, dated January 7, 2025. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court grant in part Troy Law's motion for attorney's fees and costs and award Troy Law a reduced amount of $48,170.77 in attorney's fees and $8,382.25 in costs for a total award of $56,553.02.

I. BACKGROUND

On October 21, 2024, the parties participated in a four-day jury trial before Judge Choudhury. Electronic Order, dated October 21, 2024. That jury trial ended on October 24, 2024 with the jury returning a verdict finding Defendants liable to Plaintiff under the NYLL for unpaid overtime wages and unpaid spread of hour wages. Electronic Order, dated October 24, 2024; ECF No. 92. The parties later submitted a joint calculation of damages based on the jury's verdict form (ECF No. 93), and the Court entered judgment against Defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $184,067.52. ECF No. 94.

On December 15, 2024, Troy Law filed its motion for attorney's fees and costs, supported by a declaration of John Troy and accompanying billing records and receipts. ECF No. 95; Troy Dec.; ECF No. 96-10 (“Troy Law Invoice”). Troy Law seeks $93,764.67 in fees for hours expended by John Troy (managing partner), Aaron Schweitzer (managing associate), Tiffany Troy (associate), Preethi Kilaru (clerk/paralegal), and Gavin Dass (clerk/paralegal). Troy Dec. ¶¶ 20-76. In support, Troy Law provides the credentials of each person and their requested hourly rates:

(1) John Troy is a 1985 LLM graduate of Dickinson School of Law. Mr. Troy was admitted to practice law in New York in 1989. He seeks an hourly rate of $650.00 for 45.76 hours of work (id. ¶¶ 20-38);

(2) Aaron Schweitzer graduated from the Fordham University School of Law in 2016. Mr. Schweitzer was admitted to practice law in New York in 2018. He seeks an hourly rate of $400.00 for 78.39 hours of work, a $200.00 per hour rate for 13.92 hours of travel, and no charged time for 26.75 hours spent assisting Ms. Troy during the trial (id. ¶¶ 39-51);

(3) Tiffany Troy graduated from the Fordham University School of Law. Ms. Troy was admitted to practice law in New York in 2021. She seeks an hourly rate of $250.00 for 89.10 hours of work and a $125.00 per hour rate for 25.33 hours of travel (id. ¶¶ 60-76);

(4) Preethi Kilaru graduated with her LLM from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in 2017. Ms. Kilaru is not admitted to the bar. She seeks an hourly rate of $200.00 for 8.41 hours of nonlegal work (id. ¶¶ 53-56); and

(5) Gavin Dass graduated from CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Mr. Dass is not admitted to the bar. He seeks an hourly rate of $150.00 for 18.38 hours of nonlegal work (id. ¶¶ 57-59).

In total, Troy Law seeks fees for 306.04 hours worked on this case. Id. ¶ 79.

Troy Law also seeks $8,382.25 in litigation costs and out-of-pocket expenses including costs for filing, deposition transcripts, trial transcripts, attendance at court conferences, attendance at mediation, and use of a Chinese interpreter during trial. Id. ¶¶ 81-84.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. NYLL

In the United States, absent explicit statutory authority, each party is generally required to bear its own fees and costs. See Long Island Roller Rebels v. Blakeman, No. 24-cv-02721, 2024 WL 4594706, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 4728595 (Nov. 8, 2024).

Under the NYLL, “[i]n any action instituted in the courts upon a wage claim by an employee ․ 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).

B. Reasonable Attorney's Fees

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), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Bin Gao v. ABC Corp., No. 18-CV-2708, 2021 WL 1946322 (May 15, 2021) (“In evaluating requests for attorney's fees, Courts seek to determine the presumptively reasonable fee.”) (internal quotations omitted). 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 (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).

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

Troy Law seeks an award of $102,146.92, consisting of $93,764.67 in attorney's fees and $8,382.25 in costs. Troy Dec. ¶ 85. In support, Troy law submits the credentials of each person who billed hours (see id. ¶¶ 20-59), the legal invoice for the case and various receipts (see Troy Law Invoice), and a memorandum of law (see ECF No. 97).

Defendants oppose Troy Law's fee application based on a variety of claimed deficiencies and request that the Court award Plaintiff fees and costs based on reduced hourly rates and reduced hours. See generally ECF No. 105. In support, Defendants direct the Court to three recent decisions in the Eastern District of New York (as of the time of filing their opposition) addressing fee applications made by Troy Law in similar wage and hour cases. ECF No. 105-1; ECF No. 105-2; ECF No. 105-3.¹ Troy Law later responded to Defendants’ opposition, urging the Court to grant its fee application in full and directing the Court to cases that have granted Troy Law fees at the upper end of the spectrum for wage and hour cases in this District. ECF No. 109.

Having carefully reviewed the materials submitted in support of Troy Law's application, the opposition thereto, and the relevant caselaw, the undersigned recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and costs, but with reduced rates and hours as set forth below.

A. Hourly Rates

Troy Law seeks the following rates for the following individuals: $650.00 per hour for Mr. Troy; $400.00 per hour for Mr. Schweitzer for legal work and $200.00 per hour for his travel ² ; $250.00 per hour for Ms. Troy for legal work and $125.00 per hour for her travel; $200.00 per hour for Ms. Kilaru for nonlegal work; and $150.00 per hour for Mr. Dass for nonlegal work. Troy Dec. ¶¶ 20-59.

The prevailing hourly rates for wage and hour 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.” Gao, 2021 WL 1949275, at *17 (collecting cases); 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 wage and hour 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 (Sept. 30, 2022) (similar rates). Thus, the rates sought by Troy Law in this case stand at the uppermost limit or surpass the customary rates granted in similar cases in this District.

Nonetheless, requesting fees that far exceed customary rates is standard operating procedure for Troy Law. Indeed, “[a] treatise worth of case law has emerged” in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York regarding “the rates and hours that Troy Law” requests in its fee applications. Garcia v. Francis Gen. Constr. Inc., No. 20 CIV. 4323, 2022 WL 2698434, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2022). And judges “have routinely reduced Troy Law Firm's requested hourly rates for being higher than what is commonly awarded.” Hong v. Mito Asian Fusion, Inc., No. 19-CV-3149, 2023 WL 3092722, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2023) (collecting cases).

While some courts may occasionally accede to Troy Law's lofty fee requests, the overwhelming majority significantly reduce Troy Law's hourly rates for the same attorneys and support staff who appear in this case. See, e.g., Shen v. ZenTao Inc., No. 19 CV 7269, 2025 WL 746478, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 746063 (Mar. 7, 2025) (reducing Mr. Troy's rate from $650.00 to $400.00, Mr. Schweitzer's rate from $400.00 to $250.00, Ms. Troy's rate from $250.00 to $150.00, Ms. Kilaru's rate from $200.00 to $100.00, and Mr. Dass's rate from $150.00 to $75.00); Juarez v. 156-40 Grill LLC, No. 15-CV-5081, 2024 WL 4834313, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2024) (reducing Mr. Troy's rate from $650.00 to $400.00, Mr. Schweitzer's rate from $400.00 to $300.00, Ms. Troy's rate from $200.00 to $100.00, Ms. Kilaru's rate from $200.00 to $75.00, and Mr. Dass's rate from $150.00 to $75.00); Cui v. D Prime Inc., No. 20-CV-03667, 2024 WL 3567008, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2024) (reducing Mr. Troy's rate from $650.00 to $350.00, Mr. Schweitzer's rate from $400.00 to $200.00 and travel rate from $200.00 to $100.00, Ms. Troy's rate from $200.00 to $100.00 and travel rate from $150.00 to $75.00, and Ms. Kilaru's rate from $200.00 to $75.00); Hong, 2023 WL 3092722, at *8 (reducing Mr. Troy's rate from $650.00 to $350.00, Mr. Schweitzer's rate from $400 to $200, Ms. Troy's rate from $250.00 to $150.00, and Ms. Kilaru's rate from $200.00 to $100.00). Those decisions, amongst several others, are a strong foundational reference point from which to measure the reasonableness of Troy Law's requested hourly rates in this case.

Troy Law is quick to ignore this vast array of decisions rejecting their elevated rates from its fee-application briefing. See Feng v. Kelai Corp., 727 F. Supp. 3d 423, 458 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (discussing Troy Law's general failure to reveal in its fee-applications that “courts in the Southern and Eastern Districts repeatedly have rejected requests by [Troy Law] for the magnitude of rates sought”). Troy Law instead directs courts only to one-off victories, such as Gu v. Lemonleaf Thai Rest. Mineola Corp., No. CV 18-6614, 2024 WL 3813379 (E.D.N.Y. June 13, 2024), which recently upheld in full Troy Law's requested attorney's fees “of $550-$600 per hour for a partner, and $200-400 per hour for associates and the firm's Managing Clerk.” Gu, 2024 WL 3813379, at *10. Those one-off victories, however, are misleading and generally are readily distinguishable. Gu, for instance, is distinguishable because it came on an unopposed motion for default judgment. Id.; see also Shen, 2025 WL 746478, at *3 n.8 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 2025) (distinguishing Gu on the same grounds). Moreover, Gu cited to a plethora of fee-application decisions that did not involve wage and hour disputes in reaching its conclusion (such as racial discrimination, due process, ERISA, breach of contract, ADA, and FOIA cases) and failed to address any of the cases in this District involving a fee application by Troy Law. See Gu, 2024 WL 3813379, at *10. Additionally, fee rates in the types of cases cited in Gu differ greatly from the reasonable rates typically awarded in wage and hour cases. Compare id. (citing, for example, a decision involving racial discrimination and request for fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988—Claud v. Brown Harris Stevens of Hamptons, LLC, No. 2:18-CV-01390, 2024 WL 245261 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 23, 2024)—for the proposition that awarding an experienced attorney a rate of $550 per hour is reasonable in this District), with Gao, 2021 WL 1949275, at *17 (collecting wage and hour cases and finding that “rates of $300 to $450 for partners” are the prevailing rates for wage and hour cases in this District).

Unsurprisingly, Troy Law hangs its hat on Gu in its Memorandum of Law when explaining the reasonableness of its requested fees and purports to use the same non-wage-and-hour decisions that Gu cites to as support for their assertion that their fee request “is in line with the prevailing hourly rates awarded by the Court in employment law cases.” ECF No. 97 at 5-6. The Court disagrees wholeheartedly. Upon reviewing those decisions, none of them stand for the proposition that Troy Law attempts to use them to show, and the Court declines to rely upon them.

Contrary to the cases that Troy Law cites to, there is a robust body of judicial decisions in this District reducing Troy Law's requested fees in similar wage and hour cases that are more persuasive, and that Troy Law fails to address. See Garcia, 2022 WL 2698434, at *7 (discussing the “treatise worth of case law” reducing Troy Law's fee applications).

Troy Law's latest fee application, even after its success at trial, is no exception to its usual modus operandi. With that background, the Court will now assess, with great care, the reasonableness of each individual's requested hourly rate in this case. See 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.”).

1. Mr. Troy

Having reviewed the cases cited by Troy Law and considering this Court's review of recent cases within this District, the Court finds that Mr. Troy's requested hourly rate of $650.00 is unreasonable.

Mr. Troy cites only three cases where he actually was awarded over $600.00 per hour: Blanca Sagbaciela v. Ruby Nail Tarrytown, Inc. (New York State, Westchester County, Feb. 27, 2023) (oral order awarding $650 per hour), Zhiqiang Lu v. Golden Fortune Restaurant Inc. (New York State, New York County, Apr. 27, 2022) (oral order awarding $600 per hour), and Gu, 2024 WL 3813379, at *10 (awarding $550.00 per hour for hours billed before January 4, 2020 and $650.00 per hour for hours billed after January 5, 2020). See Troy Dec. ¶ 37. However, Blanca and Zhiqiang Lu were oral rulings that the Court is unable to properly assess, and, nonetheless, are from state court and not binding. Furthermore, Gu, as discussed previously, is inapposite because that decision came on an unopposed motion for default judgment and the court there based the award on reasonable rates in cases that are not wage and hour cases. Gu, 2024 WL 3813379, at *10 (collecting cases).

On the other extreme, Defendants contend that the Court should reduce Mr. Troy's rate to $75.00 per hour—i.e., the rate of a paralegal—“because [Mr. Troy's] work is not merely junior or paralegal in nature – the gross majority of Mr. Troy's entries are attributable to work performed by paralegals,” and “Plaintiff's management of this case is so replete with infirmities a senior (or even a midlevel) attorney's rate cannot be justified.” ECF No. 105 at 1-3. Specifically, Defendants point to several of Mr. Troy's discovery email correspondence that bear the initials of other staff at Troy Law—e.g., “/gd,” indicating that Mr. Dass sent the correspondence, or “/pk,” indicating that Ms. Kilaru sent the correspondence—arguing that Troy Law attempts to pass of lower-level tasks as Mr. Troy's in an attempt to ratchet up the hourly billing rate for such tasks. Id. at 2-3; see also ECF No. 105-6; ECF No. 105-7.

Troy Law, in response, argues that Mr. Troy has “reached retirement age recently,” that there “is nothing untoward to having a staff member transcribing the email as dictated by the senior attorney,” and any “matters of great significance” that were apparently performed by support staff were actually performed by Mr. Troy with the support of his staff. Id. at 3.

The Court sees no issue with Mr. Troy's discovery correspondence bearing the initials of his support staff. Further, the Court finds no indication that Mr. Troy attempted to pass off low-level tasks as his own simply because his support staff sent emails on his behalf.³

With that said, the Court's assessment of Mr. Troy's billing entries in this case confirms that there is no compelling reason why the Court should award Mr. Troy a rate at the top end of like federal cases in this District. Mr. Troy began working on this case on April 13, 2022, and his billing entries run until August 21, 2024. See Troy Law Invoice. During that period of more than two years, Mr. Troy worked on this case for only 45.76 hours out of 306.04 total hours. Id. And although Plaintiff was successful at a jury trial in this case, Mr. Troy did not attend or otherwise assist with trial or any preparation leading up to the trial.⁴ Id.

Mr. Troy repeatedly requests unreasonable rates that courts in this District consistently reject. This case is no different. Accordingly, the Court will reduce Mr. Troy's requested rate and finds that an hourly rate of $400.00 for Mr. Troy is warranted. See Cui, 2024 WL 3567008, at *5 (in case where Troy Law prevailed at jury trial, finding that “an hourly rate of $350 for John Troy is warranted” where Mr. Troy only contributed a small fraction of the total hours billed and “did not attend trial and did not prosecute [the] case himself”) (citing Hong, 2023 WL 3092722, at *5).

2. Mr. Schweitzer

The Court finds that Mr. Schweitzer's requested hourly rates of $400.00 for legal work and $200.00 for travel are unreasonable.

Mr. Schweitzer can only point to two decisions in this District where he was actually awarded $400.000 per hour: Junjiang Ji v. Jling, Inc., 15-cv-4194, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238508 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2023),⁵ and Gu, 2024 WL 3813379, at *10. See Troy Dec. ¶ 51. Both of those decisions are distinguishable. The Court declines to rely upon Gu, as discussed previously. And in Junjiang Ji, the court only found that Mr. Schweitzer's requested hourly rate of $400.00 was reasonable given that Mr. Schweitzer suddenly took over as lead trial counsel in a bench trial after the Court sanctioned Mr. Troy for arriving at trial unprepared, violating court orders, and deceiving the court. See Junjiang Ji, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238508, at *3-4, *8 (awarding Mr. Schweitzer $400.00 per hour as sole trial counsel after disqualifying Mr. Troy “because [Mr. Troy] arrived at trial unprepared, violated this Court's order requiring [him] to make [Plaintiff] available for testimony without violating Chinese law, and deceived the Court into believing [Plaintiff] was lawfully testifying from outside of China”).

Here, on the other hand, it was Mr. Schweitzer's own inattentiveness that caused him to serve in only a supporting role to Ms. Troy during the jury trial before Judge Choudhury. Because Mr. Schweitzer apparently double-booked another trial at the same time as the one in this case, he failed to attend any of the Court's pre-trial conferences, causing the Court to order that “Mr. Schweitzer shall only be permitted to assist Ms. Troy in her role as principal trial counsel until he has obtained and reviewed transcripts of the pre-trial conferences held in this matter ․ and has been fully briefed by Ms. Troy.” See Electronic Order, dated October 18, 2024. Mr. Schweitzer failed to do even that, which necessitated Ms. Troy taking on all trial duties by herself.

While the Court notes that Mr. Schweitzer billed fairly significant hours to this matter and has been admitted in New York since 2018, that experience was not put to use in the pivotal moments in this case when it was needed the most—an outcome that can only be ascribed to Mr. Schweitzer and Troy Law's own carelessness. Because the Court finds no compelling justification to award Mr. Schweitzer an hourly rate at the top end of cases where he actually participated as lead trial counsel, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $300.00 for Mr. Schweitzer is warranted. See Cui, 2024 WL 3567008, at *5 (awarding Mr. Schweitzer “an hourly rate of $200” where Mr. Schweitzer “was the sole trial attorney in this case and is associated with 121 out of the 225 billing entries,” but “offers no justification for the exceptionally high hourly rate sought”) (citing Hong, 2023 WL 3092722, at *5). Further, the Court correspondingly reduces Mr. Schweitzer's hourly travel rate to $150.00. See 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) (“Courts in this Circuit award attorney hours spent on travel at only 50 percent of the attorney's otherwise approved rate.”) (internal quotations omitted).

3. Ms. Troy

The Court finds that Ms. Troy's requested hourly rates of $250.00 for legal work and $125.00 for travel are unreasonable and the Court should reduce those rates—although, not by as much as her colleagues.

Many of the recent Troy Law cases involve work completed by Ms. Troy before she was admitted to the New York bar in 2021. See, e.g., Hong, 2023 WL 3092722, at *8 (awarding Ms. Troy two different rates for her work completed before and after admission to the New York bar). Here, Ms. Troy was admitted in New York for the entirety of the time she spent working on this case, and she billed substantial hours for substantive work. See Troy Law Invoice. Additionally, Ms. Troy served as lead trial counsel in this case and was successful at trial.

Nevertheless, Ms. Troy is still fairly junior as her work from the beginning of this case through trial spans her second through fourth years of practice. Ms. Troy also made two egregious errors of judgment before Judge Choudhury leading up to trial when she unilaterally left two pre-trial conferences early to attend other court conferences. See Electronic Order, dated May 15, 2024 (“During the [remote] conference, when counsel for the Moving Defendants was answering the Court's questions, [Ms. Troy] placed the Court and counsel for the Moving Defendants on hold and joined a different court conference. During that period of time, [Ms. Troy] did not hear the argument made by counsel for the Moving Defendants and, upon rejoining the conference in this action, was unable to provide pertinent responses to the Court's questions.”); Electronic Order, dated October 18, 2024 (“Ms. Troy abruptly left the final pre-trial conference shortly before its conclusion to attend a conference in another matter.”). Because of Ms. Troy's conduct during the first of those conferences (which was conducted remotely), Judge Choudhury revoked the parties’ privilege of appearing remotely in this case, and the second pre-trial conference was held in person. Electronic Order, dated May 15, 2024 (“Due to Plaintiff's counsel's conduct ․ all future conferences and hearings in this case will be held in-person.”). Still, Ms. Troy left the final pre-trial conference early even though the Court held it in person. Electronic Order, dated October 18, 2024.

All things considered, based on Ms. Troy's success as lead trial counsel, the Court finds that an hourly rate of $225.00 for Ms. Troy is warranted, which is at the top end of rates awarded for junior associates in like cases in this District. See, e.g., Gao, 2021 WL 1949275, at *17 (collecting cases). Further, the Court correspondingly reduces Ms. Troy's hourly travel rate to $112.50. See Lin, 2022 WL 2718584, at *8.

4. Non-Attorney Work

The Court finds that the requested hourly rates of $200.00 for Ms. Kilaru and $150.00 for Mr. Dass are completely unreasonable.⁶ Neither Ms. Kilaru nor Mr. Dass are admitted to the bar. See Troy Dec. ¶¶ 53-57. Courts have made it crystal clear to Troy Law in the past that requesting attorney-level rates for non-attorney work “is misleading, if not dishonest and unethical” and have described Troy Law's practice of consistently doing so as an effort “to inappropriately inflate their attorneys’ fees.” Wang v. XBB, Inc., No. 18-CV-7341, 2023 WL 2614143, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023).

Troy Law's requested rates for Ms. Kilaru and Mr. Dass are in line with those of junior associates in this District, and courts have rejected these non-attorney rates time and time again. See, e.g., Shen, 2025 WL 746478, at *7 (reducing Ms. Kilaru's rate from $200.00 to $100.00, and Mr. Dass's rate from $150.00 to $75.00); Juarez, 2024 WL 4834313, at *5 (reducing Ms. Kilaru's rate from $200.00 to $75.00, and Mr. Dass's rate from $150.00 to $75.00); Cui, 2024 WL 3567008, at *10 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2024) (reducing Ms. Kilaru's rate from $200.00 to $75.00); Hong, 2023 WL 3092722, at *8 (reducing Ms. Kilaru's rate from $200.00 to $100.00).

Accordingly, the Court finds that hourly rates of $75.00 per hour for the nonlegal work performed by Ms. Kilaru and Mr. Dass is warranted.

B. Total Hours

“When awarding a reasonable attorney's fee, the district court should properly exclude documented hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary, and may reduce an award because of vagueness, inconsistencies, and other deficiencies in the billing records.” Juarez, 2024 WL 4834313, at *3 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Raja v. Burns, 43 F.4th 80, 87 (2d Cir. 2022)). Alternatively, “in dealing with such surplusage, the court has discretion simply to deduct a reasonable percentage of the number of hours claimed as a practical means of trimming fat from a fee application.” Hong, 2023 WL 3092722, at *6 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 173 (2d Cir. 1998)). An “across-the-board reduction” is especially appropriate where billing entries reflect “a variety of obviously clerical tasks, as well as entries that blend clerical tasks with legal tasks.” Lilly v. City of N.Y., 934 F.3d 222, 234 (2d Cir. 2019) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Duplicative, inflated, and clerical entries make up a significant portion of Troy Law's request for 306.04 total billable hours necessitating that the Court trim the fat from Troy Law's fee application. See Hong, 2023 WL 3092722, at *6. The billing records reflect that Mr. Troy and Mr. Schweitzer have billed, multiple times, for tasks typically handled by junior attorneys or support staff. Tasks such as electronically filing documents, scheduling mediation services, and Bates-stamping document productions should have been delegated to junior staff. See generally Troy Law Invoice. Troy Law itself admits that low-level tasks that were billed by Mr. Troy and Mr. Schweitzer at higher rates remain in their invoice. See ECF No. 109 at 6 (agreeing to waive “entry dated 7/13/2022 (0.4 hours at $650 for the filing of the Complaint, Summons & Civil Cover Sheet), 2/1/23 (1.75 hours at $400 collating and Bates stamping evidence) and 8/7/24 (2.3 hours at $400 compiling invoice for mediation conference) thus reducing the requested lodestar by $1,880”). Those types of entries pervade throughout Troy Law's invoice. See generally Troy Law Invoice. Troy Law's failure to delegate warrants a fee reduction. See Jianmin Jin v. Shanghai Original, Inc., No. 16-CV-5633, 2020 WL 4783399, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2020) (reducing requested billable hours by 40% because “John Troy frequently billed for tasks that should have been handled by a less-experienced lawyer or support staff”).

Troy Law's total requested hours also are fairly high in light of this case being a straightforward single-plaintiff wage and hour case. Despite Troy Law pursing collective action certification and class action certification in this case, no collective action or class was ever in fact certified. See ECF No. 105 at 5 (describing Plaintiff's failed efforts in this case to certify a collective action or a class, which prolonged discovery). Moreover, one of Plaintiff's NYLL claims was dismissed due to lack of standing in the days immediately prior to trial. See Electronic Order, dated October 18, 2024 (dismissing Plaintiff's wages statement claim less than a week before trial). Spending more than 300 hours litigating a single-plaintiff wage and hour case, despite Troy Law's success, is unreasonable.

Finally, Troy Law's hours are further inflated as a result of its own sloppiness. The most prominent example being that the Court revoked the parties’ privilege of appearing for conferences remotely in this case after Ms. Troy abruptly left during the May 15, 2024 conference to join a different court conference. See Electronic Order, dated May 15, 2024. Ms. Troy's actions caused Troy Law to expend additional travel hours in the months leading up to trial that it otherwise would not have had the parties been able to appear remote. In a remarkable show of chutzpah, Troy Law actually includes the billing entries for the time that Ms. Troy spent attending the conferences before Judge Choudhury that she departed from prematurely, which further inflate Troy Law's total hours in the current application. See generally Troy Law Invoice.

In short, the Court should reduce Troy Law's requested fees as duplicative, inflated, and clerical. Considering Troy Law's excessive hours, inappropriate delegation of rudimentary work to more senior attorneys, and wrongdoings that further prop up their bill, the Court finds appropriate an across-the-board reduction to Troy Law's requested hours of 30 percent. See, e.g., Wang, 2023 WL 2614143, at *7 (applying 40% reduction to Troy Law's fee application); Hong, 2023 WL 3092722, at *8 (applying 35% reduction to Troy Law's fee application); Cui, 2024 WL 3567008, at *5 (applying 30% reduction to Troy Law's fee application). That 30% reduction shall be applied to 279.29 hours—the total hours that Troy Law requests after having removed the 26.75 hours that Troy Law agrees to waive for time that Mr. Schweitzer spent supporting Ms. Troy at trial. Troy Dec. ¶ 78.

This reduction, coupled with the reduction of the hourly rate to the levels discussed above result in a total fee award of $48,170.77, as set forth below.

Tabular or graphical material not displayable at this time.

C. Costs

Troy Law seeks to recover $8,382.25 in litigation costs and out-of-pocket expenses including costs for filing, deposition transcripts, trial transcripts, attendance at court conferences, attendance at mediation, and a Chinese interpreter during trial. Troy Dec. ¶¶ 81-84. A successful plaintiff may recover reasonable costs under the NYLL. N.Y. Lab. Law § 663(1). Troy Law attached receipts supporting each of these expenses (see Troy Law Invoice), and therefore, the Court should allow Troy Law to recover these costs in full.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in this Report and Recommendation, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the Court grant in part Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs and award Plaintiff's counsel $48,170.77 in attorney's fees and $8,382.25 in costs, for a total award of $56,553.02.

V. OBJECTIONS

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2), the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) & (d) (addressing computation of days). Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to Judge Choudhury. Failure to file timely objections shall constitute a waiver of those objections both in the District Court and on later appeal to the United States Court of Appeals. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985); Frydman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 743 F. App'x 486, 487 (2d Cir. 2018); McConnell v. ABC-Amega, Inc., 338 F. App'x 24, 26 (2d Cir. 2009); F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assocs., 66 F.3d 566, 569 (2d Cir. 1995).

SO ORDERED:

FOOTNOTES

1.   Specifically, Defendants cite the following three cases: Juarez v. 156-40 Grill LLC, No. 15-CV-5081, 2024 WL 4834313 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2024); Cui v. D Prime Inc., No. 20-CV-03667, 2024 WL 3567008 (E.D.N.Y. July 29, 2024); and Hong v. Mito Asian Fusion, Inc., No. 19-CV-3149, 2023 WL 3092722 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2023).

2.   Troy Law also agrees to forego billing for 26.75 hours that Mr. Schweitzer spent assisting Ms. Troy during trial. Troy Dec. ¶ 78.

3.   However, this is not to say that Mr. Troy did not bill any clerical tasks at all. The Court will later discuss instances of Mr. Troy's failure to delegate such ministerial tasks in this case.

4.   Prior to the trial in this case, the Court officially struck Mr. Troy from the Joint Pretrial Order “based on Ms. Troy's representation that he will not appear at trial.” Electronic Order, dated October 18, 2024.

5.   Troy Law does not provide a citation for this decision, and the Court is only able to locate this decision on Lexis.

6.   Troy Law argues in its Reply brief that Defendants did not object to Ms. Kilaru and Mr. Dass's hourly rates and that therefore the Court should award Troy Law their requested rates for those individuals. ECF No. 109 at 2. Even so, Plaintiff still has the burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of its fees. See Power Up Lending Grp., 2023 WL 7001360, at *4.

LEE G. DUNST United States Magistrate Judge