MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Plaintiff Martha Czymmek (“Czymmek”) moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Dkt. No. 18. For the reasons that follow, the Court grants Czymmek attorneys’ fees in the amount of $13,685.00, along with post-judgment interest at the statutory rate. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with the facts of this case from the Court’s previous Opinion and Order dated January 23, 2024. Dkt. No. 17. This case arises from a dispute between a brother and sister over the will of their deceased father. Dkt. No. 15-5 at 1. Czymmek is the judgment creditor and Defendant Scott Fenstermaker (“Fenstermaker”) is the judgment debtor of a judgment issued by the Connecticut Superior Court (the “Connecticut Judgment”) in the amount of $93,775.77, representing attorneys’ fees awarded against Fenstermaker and to Czymmek arising out of litigation initiated by Fenstermaker regarding their father’s estate. Id. at 1, 18; Dkt. No. 15-3. Pursuant to Article 54 of the CPLR, Czymmek attempted to domesticate the Connecticut Judgment in New York County on August 16, 2023. Dkt. No. 1. The action was not assigned an index number, however, because Czymmek’s filing lacked certain information required to properly domesticate the Connecticut Judgment. Dkt. No. 4. Czymmek initiated a new filing, which was assigned index number 160261/2023 and bears the caption “In Re Docketing of a Foreign Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 54 in favor of Martha Czymmek and Against Scott Fenstermaker.” Dkt. No. 15-9. Notice of the domesticated judgment was delivered to Fenstermaker on October 24, 2023. Id. On September 14, 2023, Fenstermaker removed the domestication action to this Court, Dkt. No. 1, and on December 14, 2023, Fenstermaker moved for preliminary and permanent injunctions barring the enforcement of the Connecticut Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, Dkt. No. 11. On December 26, 2023, Czymmek moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 28 U.S.C. §1447(c), to dismiss and/or remand the action, and for attorneys’ fees. Dkt. No. 15. In the Opinion and Order dated January 23, 2024, the Court granted Czymmek’s motion to remand, and remanded the action to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. Dkt. No. 17. The Court also held that Czymmek is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs and retained jurisdiction for the purpose of entering judgment accordingly. Id. at 12-15. Because Czymmek had not submitted a request for a specific sum of fees and costs, the Court directed Czymmek to make such an application. Id. at 15. On January 25, 2025, Czymmek moved for attorneys’ fees in accordance with the Court’s Opinion and Order. Dkt. No. 18. Fenstermaker did not submit any opposition to the motion. DISCUSSION Czymmek seeks attorneys’ fees of $17,935.00, along with post-judgment interest at the legal rate of nine percent. Dkt. No. 18. Section 1447(c) provides: “An order remanding the case may require payment of just costs and actual expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). As a general matter, the “starting point” and “lodestar” in analyzing whether claimed attorneys’ fees are appropriate is “the product of a reasonable hourly rate and the reasonable number of hours required by the case.” Milea v. Metro-North R.R. Co., 658 F.3d 154, 166 (2d Cir. 2011); see also Lilly v. City of New York, 934 F.3d 222, 227-34 (2d Cir. 2019) (discussing calculation of reasonable hourly rates and reasonable number of hours expended). The party seeking fees bears the burden of demonstrating that its requested hours and hourly rates are reasonable, and must provide a court with sufficient information to assess the fee application. See, e.g., Allende v. Unitech Design, Inc., 783 F. Supp. 2d 509, 512-13 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). This approach is intended to “produce[] an award that roughly approximates the fee that the prevailing attorney would have received if he or she had been representing a paying client who was billed by the hour in a comparable case.” Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 551 (2010) (emphasis in original). A court’s focus is “on setting a reasonable hourly rate, taking account of all case-specific variables.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty. of Albany & Albany Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182, 189 (2d Cir. 2008). “The reasonable hourly rate is the rate a paying client would be willing to pay,” bearing in mind “that a reasonable, paying client wishes to spend the minimum necessary to litigate the case effectively.” Id. at 190. When an attorney’s requested hourly rate is higher than rates found to be reasonable in the relevant market, the court may reduce the requested rate. See Savino v. Comput. Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1998). A reasonable hourly rate is one “in line with…prevailing [rates]” in the district where the court sits “ for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, expertise and reputation.” See McDonald ex rel. Prendergast v. Pension Plan of the NYSA-ILA Pension Tr. Fund, 450 F.3d 91, 96 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984)). Courts also “look to the area of legal practice at issue,” because “legal markets are today so interconnected that it is no longer meaningful, in assessing a reasonable rate, to look at geographic location alone.” J.G. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 2024 WL 728626, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2024). In setting a reasonable hourly rate, the court should consider, inter alia, the “Johnson factors” enumerated in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974), abrogated on other grounds by Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 92-93 (1989). Kahlil v. Original Old Homestead Rest., Inc., 657 F. Supp. 2d 470, 475 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing Arbor Hill, 522 F.3d at 187).1 In determining what a reasonable client would be willing to pay, the Second Circuit in Arbor Hill specifically instructs courts to: [C]onsider factors including, but not limited to the complexity and difficulty of the case, the available expertise and capacity of the client’s other counsel (if any), the resources required to prosecute the case effectively (taking account of the resources being marshaled on the other side but not endorsing scorched earth tactics), the timing demands of the case, whether an attorney might have an interest (independent of that of his client) in achieving the ends of the litigation or might initiate the representation himself, whether an attorney might have initially acted pro bono (such that a client might be aware that the attorney expected low or nonexistent remuneration), and other returns (such as reputation, etc.) that an attorney might expect from the representation. 522 F.3d at 184. Once a reasonable rate of pay has been calculated, it is multiplied by a reasonable number of hours expended to determine the award amount. In this process, the court has discretion to disregard hours viewed as “excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary.” Bliven v. Hunt, 579 F.3d 204, 213 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). The Court has reviewed the submissions of Czymmek’s counsel documenting the hours worked and the activities performed in support of this action. Dkt. No. 18. Here, all of the legal work performed in this action, which was initiated in late 2023, on behalf of Czymmek was performed by Carole E. Bernstein. Id. 9. Ms. Bernstein is admitted to practice in the Southern District of New York and has more than thirty-five years of experience in the legal field. Id.
3-4. Ms. Bernstein has extensive experience in commercial litigation, has served for many years as an arbitrator for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”), and has served for just over two years as a part-time magistrate judge for the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. Id.
