PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has ruled that additional attorney fees’ and expenses totaling nearly $350,000 will be awarded to a plaintiff who garnered a $1 million settlement from NJ Transit, for alleged violations of the Federal Rail Safety Act.
A Jan. 8 ruling from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Anita B. Brody awarded the requested amount to plaintiff Jerome Johnson and his lawyers at Coffey & Kaye in Bala Cynwyd in his case alongside Jermaine Jenkins (and later, his widow Quinetta Jenkins) versus defendant New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc.
In 2017, plaintiffs Johnson and Jenkins filed this action against New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc. (NJTRO) alleging violations of the Federal Rail Safety Act. They said they were instructed to perform train movements and other activities that violated federal law, like permitting equipment to foul a track. They refused and issued good faith challenges.
NJTRO eventually charged the employees with insubordination. They filed suit for expungement of their records and damages for mental anguish and economic losses, as well as punitive damages.
In September 2020, Mr. Jenkins’ widow and NJTRO settled Jenkins’ claim for $300,000 and NJTRO agreed to pay $130,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.
That same month, Johnson and NJTRO settled his claims for $1,000,000, but did not reach an agreement regarding attorneys’ fees and expenses. Thereafter, he filed a petition for such attorneys’ fees and expenses, seeking statutory attorneys’ fees in the amount of $315,944 and expenses in the amount of $31,420.07, pursuant to the FRSA.
“In support of his petition, he has provided a 61-page timesheet with time entries for each task conducted by his attorneys. Johnson’s counsel seek a rate of $500 per hour for 563 hours on the FRSA claims and roughly 68.8 hours on related 11th Amendment issues,” Brody said.
“Johnson’s counsel utilizes the fee schedule rates established by Community Legal Services, Inc. NJTRO does not challenge counsel’s rate of $500. Johnson’s counsel has over 40 years of experience and the rate is commensurate with CLS’s fee schedule. NJTRO contests the reasonableness of Johnson’s counsel’s specific time entries and hours worked on numerous grounds. In support of their arguments, NJTRO has provided objections to nearly every time entry in an annotated copy of counsel’s timesheet.”
Rather, NJTRO alleged Johnson “tried to ‘double-dip’ and seek fees incurred from the representation of Jenkins in addition to those from his own case, that Johnson is not entitled to any fees incurred from counsel’s legislative and lobbying efforts or case work on 11th Amendment issues and numerous other objections that concern discovery disputes and travel time.”
Regarding Johnson’s claim for $31,420.07 in expenses, Johnson provided an itemized list of costs for the litigation.
NJTRO countered that Johnson attempted to claim expenses he has already received from the settlement of Jenkins’s claim, and that Johnson has failed to provide invoices for the expenses.
However, due to what she termed a lack of evidentiary support, Brody decided not to rule in favor of NJTRO’s contention that the most “equitable resolution” of an award would instead be $140,750.00 in attorneys’ fees, half of Johnson’s demand.
As Johnson “articulated the importance of counsel’s legislative work and intervention in 11th Amendment cases to his lawsuit”, Brody decided that Johnson’s counsel was entitled to recover fees for the 11th Amendment work. Brody further ruled that Johnson should be entitled to his full request for attorney’s fees.
“Counsel has obtained an ‘excellent’ result for Johnson in the form of a $1,000,000 settlement. Johnson requests $315,944.00 or roughly 32 percent of the total settlement figure. This request is entirely reasonable and Johnson is entitled to his full demand for attorneys’ fees,” Brody said.
“The FRSA permits the recovery of ‘litigation costs.’ After review of the itemized list and counsel’s description of the expense calculation process, the evidence provided is sufficient. Pursuant to the FRSA, the expenses requested are reasonable and part of the ‘necessary relief’ to make Johnson ‘whole.’ Therefore, Mr. Johnson is entitled to $31,420.07 in expenses.”
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:17-cv-02309
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com