Court Affirms $57K Fee Award Following 'Inexplicable' $360K Request
An award of $57,000 in legal fees, in an employment case where the plaintiff recovered about $8,000 at trial and her lawyers sought some $360,000 in fees, was affirmed by a New Jersey appeals court.
January 24, 2019 at 11:12 AM
4 minute read
An award of $57,000 in legal fees, in an employment case where the plaintiff recovered about $8,000 at trial and her lawyers sought some $360,000 in fees, was affirmed by a New Jersey appeals court.
“It is inexplicable to us how the amounts requested were accumulated given the factual circumstances behind the claim,” the Appellate Division said in Lema v. BTS Holdings, a per curiam decision issued Jan. 18.
The case was lodged by plaintiff Melissa Lema, who had worked as an overnight dispatcher for defendant BTS Holdings, a livery car service. According to the decision, Lema claimed that one of the drivers, an independent contractor, treated her inappropriately—via social media photos and messages, and by touching her shoulder and whispering in her ear—and that she reported the issue to a supervisor.
Lema was fired in late September 2014, after about three months on the job, and claimed in her suit that she was told that her services weren't needed anymore and that she was terminated because she watched pornography while on the job.
Within days of her firing, she filed an action alleging retaliatory discharge. The suit also named BTS Holdings' owner, Craig Lax, seeking punitive damages based on Lema's claim that it was Lax who made the decision to fire her. Lax contended that he was unaware of the situation.
Lema was represented by McOmber & McOmber in Red Bank.
The judge below was identified in electronic court records as Essex County Superior Court Judge Francine Schott, who oversaw a four-day trial in the case. The jury awarded $5,000 on Lema's retaliation claim and $2,983 for lost wages, according to the decision.
Schott dismissed the claim against Lax, finding that a lone alleged statement from Lema's supervisor that Lax was behind the firing was not enough to keep him in the case.
Based on the Law Against Discrimination's fee-shifting provision, the McOmber firm sought $360,588 in fees and $82,83 in costs. Schott deemed the request excessive in what she called a “relatively straightforward” case, reduced the lodestar from $240,392 to $135,843, and also discounted some of the costs. She also included a downward adjustment of 60 percent, though she did add a 5 percent contingency enhancement. In all, the firm was awarded $57,054 in fees and $5,367 in costs.
On appeal, the McOmber firm contended that the fees sought were reasonable, and that Schott unfairly reduced the award.
Appellate Division Judges Carmen Alvarez, William Nugent and Susan Reisner affirmed.
“We see no reason why there should have been so many attorneys present in the courtroom during the course of trial,” the court said in the unpublished decision. “That seems to be entirely unnecessary duplication of effort in a fairly straightforward case.”
“Lema's counsel called two witnesses,” the panel said. “Defendants had offered Lema substantially more than she recovered by way of settlement. The court took this appropriate consideration into account in making the allowance.”
Also at issue on appeal: The McOmber firm twice moved for Schott to recuse herself based on what they claimed were bias and disparaging comments toward the plaintiff, the first of those motions coming after a pretrial settlement conference. But Schott denied the motions. The appeals court did acknowledge an “arguably less than ideal” demeanor to counsel on both sides, but it affirmed the denials, saying that Schott “exhaustively explained her off-the-record comments, made in the hopes of reaching a settlement, as triggered by the weaknesses in Lema's case, and she also indicated to defense counsel the weaknesses in their case.”
The court also affirmed Schott's dismissal of the punitive damages claim against Lax. The panel said Lema failed to establish, under the standard set out in the state Supreme Court's 1995 opinion in Rendine v. Pantzer, “actual participation in, or willful indifference to,” the conduct at issue, or proof that the conduct was “especially egregious.”
R. Armen McOmber of the McOmber firm, who argued the appeal, declined to comment.
BTS Holdings' counsel, Kenneth McPherson Jr. of Waters McPherson McNeill in Secaucus, also declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Says NJ Supreme Court Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Says NJ Supreme Court](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/njlawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/415/2023/08/2023-08-3-church_ALM_melanie-bell.jpg)
Lack of Jurisdiction Dooms Child Sex Abuse Claim Against Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Says NJ Supreme Court
5 minute read![Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right? Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/f7/29/5f015827423e942168f82a1170af/dna-767x633.jpg)
Loopholes, DNA Collection and Tech: Does Your Consent as a User of a Genealogy Website Override Another Person’s Fourth Amendment Right?
Trending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250