Acme American Refrigeration, Inc. v. Katzenberg

15-3419 (L) Acme Am. Refrigeration, Inc. v. Katzenberg UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT=S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION ASUMMARY ORDER@). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. 1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for 2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States 3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 4 26th day of September, two thousand sixteen. 5 6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, 7 BARRINGTON D. PARKER, 8 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, 9 Circuit Judges. 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 12 ACME AMERICAN REFRIGERATION, INC., 13 ACME AMERICAN REPAIRS, INC., ACME 14 AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL CO., INC., 15 Plaintiffs-Appellants- 16 Cross-Appellees, 17 18 ACME COMMERCIAL KITCHEN DESIGN, INC., 19 ACME PACIFIC REPAIRS, INC., BANA PARTS, 20 INC., BANA PARTS COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, 21 INC., 22 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 23 24 -v.- 15-3419 (L), 16-741(XAP) 25 26 PEARL KATZENBERG f/k/a PEARL FEUER, 27 HARVEY KATZENBERG, 1 1 Defendants-Counter-Claimants, 2 3 LAW OFFICE OF VINCENT D. MCNAMARA, 4 Appellee-Cross-Appellant. 5 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 7 8 FOR APPELLANTS-CROSS-APPELLEES: MIKHAIL RATNER, Law Office of 9 Mikhail Ratner, New York, NY. 10 11 FOR APPELLEE-CROSS-APPELLANT: HELEN M. BENZIE, Law Office of 12 Vincent D. McNamara, East 13 Norwich, NY. 14 15 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court 16 for the Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.). 17 18 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 19 DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED. 20 21 Acme American Refrigeration, Inc., Acme American Repairs, 22 Inc., and Acme American Environmental Co., Inc. (“Acme”) appeal 23 from the judgment of the United States District Court for the 24 Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.) awarding attorney’s 25 fees to the Law Office of Vincent D. McNamara (“Law Office”). 26 Law Office cross-appeals on the ground that the award did not 27 include prejudgment interest. We assume the parties’ 28 familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, 29 and the issues presented for review. 30 In a nutshell, Law Office represented Acme and its 31 principals on retainer in a series of related legal disputes 32 from 2006 to 2014, in multiple states and courts. All the 33 proceedings concerned alleged egregious misconduct by Acme’s 34 former president, Harvey Katzenberg, and his wife, Pearl, in 35 their dealings with Acme and Acme’s principals. Acme‘s present 36 lawsuit alleges that the Katzenbergs defrauded Acme and 37 non-party insurance carriers. 38 When the attorney-client relationship began to break down 39 in or around 2010, Acme allegedly stopped making timely, full 40 retainer payments. Eventually, beginning in 2013, Law Office 2 1 moved to withdraw as Acme’s counsel and to set its fees for work 2 performed in the present lawsuit and the related legal disputes. 3 The magistrate judge granted the motion to withdraw and 4 recommended that Law Office’s fees be set at $277,674.09, based 5 on the magistrate judge’s review of billing records and a 6 determination as to how much of the billed work for related 7 disputes was properly awarded in the present lawsuit. The 8 magistrate judge also assessed the quality of Law Office’s 9 representation and considered the reasonableness of Law 10 Office’s billing rates. The district judge rejected Acme’s 11 numerous objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report 12 and recommendation in full. Acme appeals from the fee award; 13 Law Office appeals from the lack of prejudgment interest. 14 We review an award of attorney’s fees for abuse of 15 discretion. In re Bank of Am. Corp. Sec., Deriv., & ERISA 16 Litig., 772 F.3d 125, 134 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Alderman v. 17 Pan Am World Airways, 169 F.3d 99, 102 (2d Cir. 1999). “Indeed 18 ‘abuse of discretion’ – already one of the most deferential 19 standards of review – takes on special significance when 20 reviewing fee decisions.” Goldberger v. Integrated Res., 21 Inc., 209 F.3d 43, 47 (2d Cir. 2000). We also review the 22 decision whether to award prejudgment interest for abuse of 23 discretion. Wickham Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 3, 24 Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 955 F.2d 831, 833-34 (2d 25 Cir. 1992). A district court abuses discretion if its decision 26 rests on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding, 27 or “cannot be located within the range of permissible 28 decisions.” McDaniel v. Cty. of Schenectady, 595 F.3d 411, 416 29 (2d Cir. 2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 30 There was no abuse of discretion in awarding Law Office 31 $277,674.09 in fees or in declining to grant prejudgment 32 interest on that award. The magistrate judge’s report and 33 recommendation carefully examined Law Office’s billing records 34 and rates for their adequacy, reasonableness, and relevance to 35 the present lawsuit. The district judge considered Acme’s 36 objections and adopted the report and recommendation in its 37 entirety under both clear error and de novo review. We cannot 38 say that the district judge abused her discretion in rejecting 39 Law Office’s bid for prejudgment interest, raised for the first 40 time long after the attorney’s fees were awarded. 3 1 Accordingly, and finding no merit in Acme’s or Law Office’s 2 other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district 3 court. 4 FOR THE COURT: 5 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK 4