Multiple Documents - Moritz College of Lawmoritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw//litigation/documents/Favo… · · 2013-12-16Multiple Documents Part Description 1 2 pages 2 Declaration

Multiple DocumentsPart Description1 2 pages2 Declaration3 Memorandum in Support4 Exhibit5 Exhibit

Favors et al v. Cuomo et al, Docket No. 1:11-cv-05632 (E.D.N.Y. Nov 17, 2011), Court Docket

© 2013 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. Terms of Servicehttp://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6MTV04I82 // PAGE 1

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/public/document/Terms_of_Service

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6MTV04I82

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 657 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14596

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 657 Filed 12/13/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 14597

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

MARK A. FAVORS, HOWARD LIEB, LILLIE H.

GALAN, EDWARD A. MULRAINE, WARREN

SCHREIBER, and WEYMAN A. CAREY,

Plaintiffs,

DONNA KAYE DRAYTON, EDWIN ELLIS, AIDA FORREST,

GENE A. JOHNSON, JOY WOLLEY, SHEILA WRIGHT,

LINDA LEE, SHING CHOR CHUNG, JULIA YANG, JUNG

HO HONG, JUAN RAMOS, NICK CHAVARRIA, GRACIELA

HEYMANN, SANDRA MARTINEZ, EDWIN ROLDAN,

MANOLIN TIRADO, LINDA ROSE, EVERET MILLS,

ANTHONY HOFFMAN, KIM THOMPSON-WEREKOH,

CARLOTTA BISHOP, CAROL RINZLER, GEORGE

STAMATIADES, JOSEPHINE RODRIGUEZ, SCOTT

AUSTER, EDWIN FIGUEROA, and SANTIAGO DIAZ,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

-against- Case No. 11-cv-5632

RR-GEL-DLI-RLM

ANDREW CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York,

DEAN G. SKELOS, as Majority Leader and President

Pro Tempore of the Senate of the State of New York, DECLARATION OF

SHELDON SILVER, as Speaker of the Assembly JACKSON CHIN

of the State of New York, ANDREA STUART-COUSINS,

as Minority Leader of the Senate of the State of New York,

BRIAN M. KOLB, as Minority Leader of the Assembly of

the State of New York, the NEW YORK STATE

LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE ON DEMOGRAPHIC

RESEARCH AND APPORTIONMENT(“LATFOR”),

JOHN J. McENENY, as Member of LATFOR, ROBERT OAKS,

as Member of LATFOR, ROMAN HEDGES, as Member of

LATFOR, MICHAEL F. NOZZOLIO, as Member of LATFOR,

MARTIN MALAVÉ DILAN, as Member of LATFOR, and

WELQUIS R. LOPEZ, as Member of LATFOR,

Defendants.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

Case 1:11-cv-05632-DLI-RR-GEL Document 657-1 Filed 12/13/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 14598

2

JACKSON CHIN declares under the penalty of perjury that the below statements are true:

1. I am employed as a senior counsel by LATINOJUSTICE PRLDEF (herein,

“LatinoJustice”). LatinoJustice is an independent non-partisan, not-for-profit civil rights legal

defense fund that has engaged in civil rights and constitutional litigation and advocacy on behalf of

Latinos since being founded in 1972.

2. I am the lead attorney representing the Ramos Plaintiffs in this action.

3. This declaration is submitted in support of the Ramos Plaintiffs’ application as a prevailing

party for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The total aggregate time for which attorneys’ fees are

respectfully requested is based on LatinoJustice legal staff time spent in this proceeding on behalf of

the Ramos Plaintiffs who ultimately prevailed on Count I and II of their original complaint

concerning the constitutional redistricting of New York State’s 2012 Congressional plan. DE 37.

4. LatinoJustice’s respectfully seeks recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees at $142,488.75 and

their necessary costs and expenses of $4,270.

5. Exhibit A is a schedule that shows, by date, the nature of the legal work performed and the

persons performing such work, proposed rates, amounts billed, as well as the total time accrued for

each attorney and law clerks in this litigation. The detailed schedule also includes the billable time

expended on the preparation of the instant attorneys’ fee application. Attached.

6. Exhibit B is a declaration from Asher Ross, an expert who provided services relating to this

case. Attached.

ATTORNEYS FEES

7. LatinoJustice attorneys maintain contemporaneous time records for the time spent and tasks

performed in the performance of their employment. I have reviewed those time records and they are

consistent with my recall of the work performed by each attorney, including myself, in this litigation.

The proposed rates and amounts reflect those rates for attorneys of comparable experience and


3

qualifications; moreover, they are substantially consistent with the nature and complexity of the

federal proceedings involved, in light of the time-demands and expediency of the litigation.

8. The proposed hourly rates conform to the customary hourly rates that courts in the Eastern

District of New York have awarded in civil rights cases. The rates sought for law clerk and law

fellow also comport with the district’s customary rates. LatinoJustice is not, however, seeking

recovery of any fees for the litigation administrative support for the office’s legal assistant and

administrative assistant.

FAVORS I: LatinoJustice Professional Fees

Professional Rate Hours Billed Adjusted Amount

Cartagena, Juan $550.00 37.7 $

Perez, Jose $425.00 83.9 $ 34,828.75

Chin, Jackson $400.00 221.5 $ 87,640.00 ($142,488.75)

Knotts, Natalie $100.00 22 $ 2,200

Diaz, Rodrigo $200.00 15 $3,000 Total $147,688.75

10. I have carefully reviewed all attorney time sheets related to this case and, on behalf of all

attorneys and others listed herein from LatinoJustice, I have exercised prudent billing judgment, and

have not sought recovery for unnecessary, excessive, or redundant work. Concerning our local travel

time, to and from the various court hearings in this litigation, I have billed at only half the customary

attorney fees’ rates.

QUALIFICATIONS OF JACKSON CHIN

11. I have been a member of the bar of the State of New York since 1987 and I have been

practicing law for 26 years. I am a member of the bar of this Court. I am admitted to and have good

standing in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Third Circuit and Fourth

Circuit, and, in the Southern District of New York. I am a law graduate of Hastings College of the Law,

University of California at San Francisco.


4

12. From September 2000 to date, I have been officially involved in civil rights and

constitutional litigation as a LatinoJustice (formerly PRLDEF) staff counsel in the following cases:

Rodriguez, et. al. v. Pataki, et. al. (S.D.N.Y. 2003)(Intervened on behalf of Latino voters

to challenge New York State’s Senate 62 seat plan, which, despite increased Latino

population growth, had failed to create a Latino majority-minority senate district in the

Washington Heights area of New York City).

Perez v. Volusia County, Florida (M.D. FL) Co-counsel in this Section 4(e) Voting Rights

Act case filed in 2008 challenging defendant’s failure to provide language assistance and

bilingual ballots to Puerto Rican voters. Case resulted in consent agreement on the eve of

trial in 2010 requiring the County to provide additional language assistance and bilingual

ballots).

• E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enterprises, Inc. (D.CT, 2006)(Intervened on behalf of several Latino

warehouse workers at an international cosmetics distribution firm in this Title VII

national origin based employment discrimination case brought by the EEOC; workers

were penalized in retaliation for speaking in Spanish among the predominantly Latino

workforce in violation of the company’s unwritten English-only rule and practice; Case

ended in monetary damages for all Plaintiffs).

• Sr. Fahy, et. al. v. Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Safety (D. N.H.

2005)(Plaintiffs challenged the state motor vehicle department’s change of regulations and

rules which adversely affected Latino-surnamed driver licensees and Puerto Rican

applicants).

• Milanes, et. al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. C.I.S., and Federal Bureau

of Investigations (S.D.NY. 2008)(Plaintiffs represented a class of lawful permanent

residents, Latinos and non-Latinos, who passed in-person naturalization interviews, but

whose naturalization applications were severely delayed in contravention of statutory time

frames, owing to bottlenecks in the FBI’s criminal background checks and screening unit;

Case ended after appeal to 2d Circuit, ultimately resolved in settlement, agency reforms

reduced backlogs for thousands of naturalization applicants in the SDNY.)

• Riverside Coalition of Business Persons and Landlords, Ruth Marino, and John Doe 1

v. Township of Riverside. (NJ Court 2006) (Plaintiffs brought action contending that

the locality’s adopted Illegal Immigration Relief Act had exceeded the city's authority,

was vague, would unfairly put businesses at risk, and violate civil rights mandates

under NJ law. Case settled and ordinance permanently enjoined.)

• Lozano, et. al. v. City of Hazleton (M.D. PA 2007, 3rd

Cir 2013)(Plaintiffs, individuals and

entities successfully challenged prototype local anti-immigrant legislation - Hazleton's

Illegal Immigration Relief Act and related ordinances- based on US. Const. Supremacy

clause, preemption, due process, Sec. 1981, Fair Housing Act, and state laws; the City’s

primary ordinance required residential landlords, business owners, and other entities to not


5

rent nor provide goods or services to "illegal aliens"; ordinance created scheme of

penalties for violations imposing loss of business licenses, occupancy permits, $1,000 per

day civil penalties; other ordinance set forth English-only policy in all municipal services;

After a full evidentiary trial, Plaintiffs prevailed and were granted permanent injunction

enjoining ordinance; affirmed twice by 3rd Cir.)

• John Does #1 through #8 and National Day Laborers Organizing Network (NDLON) v.

Village of Mamaroneck (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (Defendant Village targeted Plaintiffs Latino day

laborers for discriminatory law enforcement seeking to ban Plaintiffs from soliciting work

on public streets. After trial, Court found village had engaged in policy and practice of

harassment, imposed unreasonable burdens and interfered with First amendment rights,

and, violated equal protection clause by its selective enforcement of traffic ordinances and

engaging in unconstitutional discriminatory treatment of laborers on the basis of race

and/or national origin.

• Cubas, et. al. v. Martinez NY State Commissioner of Dep't of Motor Vehicles (NYS courts,

2005) (PRLDEF filed action on behalf of Latino and non-Latino immigrant license holders,

with various immigration statuses who had been denied license renewals and other license

holders who were at risk of having their licenses suspended based on immigration status;

agency failed to abide by administrative notice procedures by implementing “legal presence

in the United States” requirement. DMV would impact 300,000 to 500,000 former and

current New York State license holders. Plaintiffs prevailed at trial court, but State appeals

courts reversed and upheld agency’s authority)

• El Comité de Trabajadores Por Progreso Y Bienestar Social, et. al. v. Freehold Borough,

et al. (D.N.J 2003)(Plaintiff-organization and immigrant day laborers who were being

selectively targeted, harassed and fined by the borough police and code enforcement

officers for their soliciting of work at the “muster zone” prevailed after court found

coomon illegal police practice of issuing summons based on “officer’s discretion” basis.)

• Aguilar, et. al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. ICE (S.D.N.Y.

2012)(Plaintiff Latino immigrants and family members successfully challenged DHS-ICE

policies and practices in conducting warrantless pre-dawn home raids, arrests and

detention of immigrants and, collateral arrests in sweeps that occurred throughout Long

Island counties. Settlement was reached April 2013 after 5 years of litigation; ICE agreed

to pay $1,000,000 in damages and reform agency’s policies and procedures to effect due

process protections)

13. In 2006, LatinoJustice obtained attorneys’ fees and costs by SDNY Judge Colleen

McMahon as a prevailing party in John Does #1 - #8 and National Day Laborers Organizing

Network v. Village of Mamaroneck (SDNY). The court approved my attorneys’ fees hourly rate of

$350.00 in that action seven years ago.


6

14. As a LatinoJustice staff trial attorney for the past thirteen years, I have also been involved

in numerous other redistricting, election law and voting rights matters, which required legal analysis

and advocacy relating to a number of jurisdictions, including, The City of New York, County of

Nassau (New York), Town of Islip, County of Suffolk (New York), The City of Lawrence,

Massachusetts, Osceola, Seminole and Orange Counties, Florida, The State of Connecticut, and,

Prince William County, Virginia. As a then Associate Counsel, I had also worked on the redistricting

litigation,

15. As a participant in several cycles of national and local election protection voter education

activities, I have conducted legal trainings and workshops for volunteer attorneys and law students

on U.S. voting rights and state election laws from 2002 to date. I also conducted community

education training seminars on the U.S. Census and redistricting issues.

16. Before joining LatinoJustice PRLDEF, I was the supervising attorney and project manager

for the Immigration Law Project, a citywide legal services program of Safe Horizon (formerly,

Victim Services), primarily serving victims of domestic violence and crimes, I provided direct

representation to many indigent immigrant clients in proceedings before the Executive Office of

Immigration Review (e.g. Immigration Courts of New York City and Newark, New Jersey) and the

Board of Immigration Appeals.

17. My public interest law practice included work in other non-profit organizations (e.g., The

Legal Aid Society of New York, Center for Immigrant Rights, CSWA, et. al.) where I had represented

clients in matters before the courts and administrative tribunals of New York State’s Manhattan

Family Court, National Labor Relations Board, New York State Division On Human Rights, U.S.


7

Department of Homeland Security (formerly, U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service), and, the

United States and New York State Departments of Labor.

QUALIFICATIONS OF JOSE PEREZ

18. Jose Perez has been a member of the bar of the State of New York since 1986 and he has been

in practice for over 27 years. He is a member of the bar of this Court since 2000, and is also admitted to

and has good standing in the Southern District of New York19. He is law graduate of St. John’s Law

School. In September 2007, he was appointed LatinoJustice’s first-ever Assistant General Counsel,

serving as the organization’s Legal Director. In 2013, he was appointed Deputy General Counsel and

continues to manage the organization’s legal division and staff. He has been involved with many of the

civil rights cases in LatinoJustice’s litigation docket for the past seven years involving novel civil rights

and constitutional issues, as lead or co-counsel, as well as in the following cases:

• Recalde v. Bae Cleaners (NYS Supreme Ct.) (Obtained precedential decision enjoining

landlord from evicting rent-stabilized Latino immigrant tenant because of his immigration

status. Case eventually settled with Owner renewing tenant’s lease.).

Perez v. Volusia County, Florida (M.D. FL) Co-counsel in this Section 4(e) Voting

Rights Act case filed in 2008 challenging defendant’s failure to provide language

assistance and bilingual ballots to Puerto Rican voters. Case resulted in consent

agreement on the eve of trial in 2010 requiring the County to provide additional language

assistance and bilingual ballots.)

• Bollmer v. Connolly Properties (D.C.NJ) (Successfully represented local Latino

community-based organization in Plainfield, New Jersey and obtained dismissal of novel

civil racketeering (RICO) and harboring claims brought against local landlord for renting

apartments to Latino immigrants. Granted intervention to appear in appeal after LL

defaulted and 3d Circuit affirmed dismissal. )

Roxanna Orrellana Santos v. Frederick County, Maryland Sheriff et. al (D. Ct. Md) (A

lead counsel representing Latina immigrant plaintiff suing local sheriff for illegally

profiling and arresting her on a civil immigration warrant. Obtained precedential decision

from 4th

Circuit of Appeals in August 2013 holding that local law enforcement cannot

enforce a civil immigration warrant.)


8

19. Mr. Perez has extensive public interest litigation experience prior to joining LatinoJustice,

having worked at the Office of the New York State Attorney General for seven years as an Assistant

Attorney General, Deputy Chief, and Acting Bureau Chief of its Consumer Frauds & Protection Bureau.

20. Prior to that, he worked at the Legal Aid Society of New York for over ten years, initially as

a staff attorney in the Juvenile Rights Division, and for eight years was a Supervising Attorney in the

Civil Division at the Brooklyn and Harlem Neighborhood Offices, as well as serving Supervisor of the

City-wide Family Law Unit.

21. Mr. Perez has also held supervisory and teaching position at Hofstra University’s School of

Law Housing Rights & Disabilities Law Clinics; and was a prosecuting attorney with the NYC Housing

Authority’s Law Department - Anti-Narcotics Strike Force, and the Queens County District Attorney's

Office’s Intake and Homicide Bureaus.

QUALIFICATIONS OF JUAN CARTAGENA

22. Juan Cartagena has been a member of the bar of the State of New York since 1981 and he has

been in practice for over 32 years. He is a member of the bar of this Court, and is also admitted to and has

good standing in the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals of the 2d Circuit,

Third Circuit, and, Ninth Circuit, U.S. District Court for the District of NJ, and, the Southern District of

New York. He is a law graduate of Columbia Law School.

23. He is a constitutional and civil rights attorney with vast experience litigating on behalf of

Latino and African American communities in the areas of voting rights, employment discrimination,

language rights, access to public education for poor and language minority children, and housing.

24. He formerly served as General Counsel and Vice President for Advocacy at The Community

Service Society of New York, a not-for-profit social services and advocacy center, where he also directed

its Mass Imprisonment & Reentry Project. Previously, he was Associate Counsel at the Community


9

Service Society and a Staff Attorney at the former Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund (now

LatinoJustice PRLDEF).

25. Mr. Cartagena was a former Municipal Court judge in Hoboken, New Jersey. He lectures on

constitutional and civil rights issues at Rutgers University in New Brunswick and has authored law review

and other articles on constitutional, human and civil rights laws.

26. His litigation and advocacy was on a national level with the Voting Rights Act, the National

Voter Registration Act and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). This led to invitations in 2005-2006 to

testify before the U.S. House and U.S. Senate on the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act and its

effects on Latino communities in New York and New Jersey.

27. Mr. Cartagena’s legal practice in federal voting rights cases included:

Valentin v. Koch (Herron v. Koch) (S.D.N.Y. 1981) Section 5 Voting Rights Act challenge

to New York City Council Districts.

Velasco v. Byrne (Ketchum v. Byrne) (N.D. IL 1983) Section 2 Voting Rights Act

challenge to Chicago ALDERMANIC Council Districts.

Merced v. Koch (S.D.N.Y. 1983) Section 5 challenge to New York City Area Policy Board

Districts.

Vargas v. Calabrese (D.N.J. 1985) Section 2 Voting Rights Act, Section 203 Voting

Rights Act, and constitutional challenge to Election Day voter challenges in Jersey City,

New Jersey.

United Parents Associations v. Board of Elections (E.D.N.Y. 1989) Section 2 Voting

Rights Act challenge to New York State nonvoting purge law.

Diaz v. Silver (S.D.N.Y. 1996) Defense of constitutional challenge to New York

congressional districts.

League of Women Voters v. Merril (D.N.H. 1996) National Voting Rights Act challenge to

New Hampshire’s failure to register voters at public assistance agencies.

National Congress for Puerto Rican Rights v. Sweeney (S.D.N.Y. 1996) National Voter

Registration Act challenge to New York’s failure to register voters in unemployment

insurance offices.

Hayden v. Pataki (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Section 2 Voting Rights Act and constitutional

challenge to New York State’s felon disenfranchisement law.


10

Garcia v. Legislative Reapportionment Commission (E.D. PA 2012) Constitutional one

person, one vote challenge to Pennsylvania State Legislative Districts.

Rios Andino v. Orange County (M.D. FL 2012) Section 2 challenge to Orange County

Legislative Districts.

Arcia v. Detzner (S.D. FL 2012) National Voting Rights Act challenge to Florida

noncitizen purge practices.

28. Mr. Cartagena provided overall supervision and guidance on this litigation given his

extensive experience in voting rights cases.

QUALIFICATIONS OF RODRIGO DIAZ AND NATALIE KNOTTS

29. Under my legal supervision, Natalie Knotts, was a 3L law student from Northeastern

University School of Law, who did her full-time trimester law internship (Fall 2011–Winter 2012) at

LatinoJustice. She provided legal research in support of the initial phase of our preparation of intervention

papers in this action. She provided 22 hours and is being billed at $100 an hour for a total of $2,200.

30. Rodrigo Diaz, a 2012 law graduate of New York University School of Law, is currently a

Public Interest Civil Rights Fellow at LatinoJustice. He has provided legal research and assistance related

to the preparing for filing of Ramos plaintiffs’ Rule 54 petition for attorneys’ fees and costs. He provided

15 hours and is being billed at $200 an hour for a total of $3,000.

31. Based on the qualifications and experience of the counsel and their law clerks, we request that

attorneys' fees be awarded based on the following schedule:

Jackson Chin Senior Counsel $400/hour

Jose Perez Deputy General Counsel $425/hour

Juan Cartagena President and General Counsel $550/ hour

Rodrigo Diaz Law Grad / Legal Fellow (2013) $200/hour

Natalie Knotts Law Clerk (2011-2012) $100/hour


11

32. The proposed rates for the aforementioned LatinoJustice attorneys, are based on the

years of experience and qualifications of similar attorneys providing such litigation services, and

the proposed attorney rates are comparable and prevalent in the general legal community for work

of complexity performed by attorneys of comparable experience and qualifications. The three

attorneys from LatinoJustice in this matter each have over 25 years of litigation experience and

their market rate for their hourly legal services would be significantly greater. Their qualifications

in voting rights and civil rights litigation are provided. See, Declaration of Jackson Chin.

33. In light of the nature, complexity, and results achieved in the instant proceeding, and the

favorable results achieved by the Ramos plaintiffs resulting in new Congressional district maps in

New York timely adopted by the Court, our proposed rates are consistent with the work produced.

As this Court is aware, the New York State Legislature abdicated its role in ensuring that new

districts were created and approved in time for the 2012 elections, putting at risk the viability of its

Congressional delegation.

34. Through the work of the Ramos plaintiffs, and others in this case, this Court had to

assume the role of the Legislature entirely and protect the rights of all New York voters in the

process. Time was of the essence adding to the complexity of this litigation. The jurisdictional

issues leading to the convening of a three-judge District Court also speak to the complexity of this

case. Finally, the results obtained were significant and inured to the benefit of all New York

voters, especially those segments of the State, like Latino populations, that grew dramatically

between the 2000 ad 2010 census.

35. LatinoJustice is seeking attorneys fees’ billable hours totaling $147,688.75.


12

COSTS

36. LatinoJustice has waived its photocopying, postage, and other administrative costs in this

litigation. However, we are requesting the costs expended for the expert we relied on for demographic

and mapping requirements. Mr. Ross provided his expertise in demography, population data access,

analysis and skills in handling U.S. Census data, applying mapping software, and, supplied statistical

evaluations relating to Congressional districts in the State of New York. He was retained at $35 an hour,

and his expenses totaled $4,270 which LatinoJustice paid. See, Ex. B, Declaration of Asher Ross.

CONCLUSION

As this Court has indicated, Ramos plaintiffs have prevailed on Counts I and II of their

complaint. We successfully contributed materially to the ultimate outcome of this litigation resulting in

the Court’s adoption of the 2012 New York Congressional districts.

The final adoption of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations is a product which

registered the concrete concerns and voices of the broader Latino minority community and the Ramos

plaintiffs. In the end, Latino Congressional districts were largely preserved and a new Congressional

district was drawn to reflect the emerging plurality of voting age Latinos residing in Central Harlem,

Washington Heights and the Bronx.

Dated: December 13, 2013

New York, New York

Respectfully submitted,

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor

New York, New York 10013

212-219-3360 ext. 7572


13

Juan Cartagena

Jose Perez

Jackson Chin

/s/ Jackson Chin


14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 13th of December, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing

submission with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic

filing to persons electronically noticed. I further certify that the foregoing documents and the Notice of

Electronic Filing will be sent by First Class Mail to the 3 Judge Panel and Magistrate's Court.

/s/ Jackson Chin


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

MARK A. FAVORS, HOWARD LIEB, LILLIE H.

GALAN, EDWARD A. MULRAINE, WARREN

SCHREIBER, and WEYMAN A. CAREY,

Plaintiffs,

DONNA KAYE DRAYTON, EDWIN ELLIS, AIDA FORREST,

GENE A. JOHNSON, JOY WOLLEY, SHEILA WRIGHT,

LINDA LEE, SHING CHOR CHUNG, JULIA YANG, JUNG

HO HONG, JUAN RAMOS, NICK CHAVARRIA, GRACIELA

HEYMANN, SANDRA MARTINEZ, EDWIN ROLDAN,

MANOLIN TIRADO, LINDA ROSE, EVERET MILLS,

ANTHONY HOFFMAN, KIM THOMPSON-WEREKOH,

CARLOTTA BISHOP, CAROL RINZLER, GEORGE

STAMATIADES, JOSEPHINE RODRIGUEZ, SCOTT

AUSTER, EDWIN FIGUEROA, and SANTIAGO DIAZ,

Intervenor-Plaintiffs,

-against- Case No. 11-cv-5632

RR-GEL-DLI-RLM

ANDREW CUOMO, as Governor of the State of New York,

DEAN G. SKELOS, as Majority Leader and President Pro

Tempore of the Senate of the State of New York, MEMORANDUM OF

SHELDON SILVER, as Speaker of the Assembly of LAW IN SUPPORT OF

the State of New York, ANDREA STUART- COUSINS, as RAMOS PLAINTIFFS

Minority Leader of the Senate of the State of New York, BRIAN MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS

M. KOLB, as Minority Leader of the Assembly of the State of FEES AND COSTS

New York, the NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE TASK

FORCE ON DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND APPORTION-

MENT (“LATFOR”), JOHN J. McENENY, as Member of

LATFOR, ROBERT OAKS, as Member of LATFOR,

ROMAN HEDGES, as Member of LATFOR, MICHAELF.

NOZZOLIO, as Member of LATFOR, MARTIN MALAVÉ

DILAN, as Member of LATFOR, and WELQUIS R. LOPEZ,

as Member of LATFOR,

Defendants.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x


2

BACKGROUND

On or about March 23, 2011, the United States Census Bureau released to the New York

State Legislature and Governor the population data gathered as a result of the 2010 Census. Accordingly,

York State’s total population of 19,378,102 persons was entitled to 27 congressional districts, requiring a

decrease of two seats owing to lower overall population growth compared to the rest of the country. The

U.S. Constitution’s Article I and Fourteenth Amendment required The New York State Legislature to

timely redraw new congressional districts reflecting the census data. This, the State Legislature did not do

so and presented a constitutional dilemma.

On November 11, 2011, the Favors plaintiffs filed their complaint to being this action. Dkt

Entry No. (“DE”) 1. On December 27, 2011, Ramos plaintiffs filed their motion to intervene and

proposed complaint. DE 37. The Ramos plaintiffs are Latino registered voters residing in various New

York communities, including Kings, the Bronx, Westchester, Orange and Suffolk counties. All of the

Ramos Plaintiffs resided in Congressional districts that were malapportioned based upon the 2000 Census

data. Accordingly, their votes would have been diluted relative to residents in other congressional

districts. Counts I and II of the Ramos Plaintiffs proposed complaint alleged that the defendants’ failure to

draw new legislative and Congressional districts which were needed for the 2012 election cycle would be

in violation of the equal protection and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and that Ramos

plaintiffs’ voting strength would be diluted owing to the malapportioned districts . DE 37.

On February 14, 2012, Judge Dora Irrizary inter alia granted Ramos plaintiffs' motion to

intervene. On February 14, 2012, the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit of Appeals designated a three-

judge panel. On February 21, 2012 the Three Judge Panel issued an order appointing Magistrate Judge

Roanne Mann as Special Master tasked with the creation of a redistricting plan, and issued an order

scheduling a hearing for all parties on February 27, 2012.


3

On February 27, 2012, Magistrate Judge Roanne Mann, after conferencing the case with all

Parties, issued an order setting an expedited briefing schedule for the parties to submit their proposed

congressional redistricting plans along with how those plans comport with applicable legal redistricting

principles and the Court’s mandate given that the petition process is scheduled to begin on March 20,

2012. DE 129. On February 29, 2012 the Ramos plaintiffs submitted their proposed congressional district

plan and data along with memorandum in support. DE 142. On March 3, 2012, Ramos plaintiffs filed

their opposition and objections to other proposed Congressional district plans. DE 173. On March 5,

2012, Ramos plaintiffs’ counsel appeared and participated in the lengthy hearing on the various proposed

congressional redistricting maps that had been submitted by the parties as well as comments and

objections by members of the public. DE 193. On March 5, 2012, the Court issued an order with a

proposed plan to be presented to the Three Judge Panel. DE 184. On March 6, 2012, Ramos plaintiffs

submitted their response to the proposed plan. DE 190. On March 12, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued

a report and recommendation recommending adaption of the proposed plan DE 223 and scheduling order.

DE 224. On March 14, 2012, Ramos plaintiffs filed their response to the report and recommendation. DE

228; and on March 15, 2012 submitted a supplemental exhibit. DE 235.

On March 15, 2012, the Three Judge Panel conducted a lengthy hearing on any objections

or comments by the parties and the public on the report & recommendation at which Ramos plaintiffs’

counsel participated in. DE 238. At this hearing counsel for the Ramos plaintiffs defended the legality

and viability of their proposed Congressional maps.

On March 21, 2013, the Three Judge Panel adopted the report & recommendation and

proposed plan. DE 242. On November 5, 2013, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) this Court issued

Judgment Order, DE 639, entering judgment in favor of Ramos Plaintiffs on Count I and II of their

complaint. Ramos Plaintiffs now move pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 for an award of

reasonable attorneys’ fees of $142,488.75 and costs of $4,270 against Defendants.


4

AS PREVAILING PARTIES, RAMOS PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO RECOVER

REASONABLE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

Ramos Plaintiffs Are Prevailing Parties

A prevailing party is a party who succeeds on any significant issue in the litigation and that

success provides some benefit that had been sought by the party. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424

(1983). Kerr v. Quinn, 692 F.2d 875, 887 (2d Cir. 1982). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), prevailing parties

“should recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust.” Id.

(citations omitted).

As recognized by this Court’s entry of judgment in their favor, Ramos plaintiffs are prevailing

parties entitled to a fee award. A plaintiff can be a prevailing party if the intervenor contributed

importantly in producing the outcome of the case. Wilder v. Bernstein, 965 F.2d 1196, 1204 (2d Cir.

1992). Ramos plaintiffs achieved the preservation of two Congressional districts held by preferred

Latino minority representatives, in the Bronx and Kings County, and, a district in Central Harlem, which

was redrawn for the Latino majority residents, where significant Latino population growth and fair

electoral opportunity will likely arise within this decade.

In this respect the final Congressional plan adopted by this Court substantially followed the

proposals by the Ramos plaintiffs and created three districts where Latino voters could elect candidates of

choice, a result that may not have been realized had not the judiciary intervened to protect the rights of

voters.

The Ramos Plaintiffs’ Attorneys’ Fees Are Reasonable

The standard for determining a reasonable fee when attorney fees are authorized by a fee

shifting statute is the lodestar method. The lodestar amount is calculated by multiplying the number of

hours the attorney reasonably spent on the case by a reasonable hourly rate. Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S.


5

424, 433 (1983). The Second Circuit has looked to case-specific factors to determine the reasonableness

of the hourly rates and the number of hours expended. See Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens Neighbor-hood

Ass’n v. County of Albany, 522 F.3d 182, 187-190 (2d Cir. 2007) (listing factors to be considered,

including factors from Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th

Cir. 1974)).

I. Ramos Plaintiffs’ Attorney Hourly Rates Are Eminently Reasonable

A reasonable hourly rate is the prevailing hourly rate in the relevant community for similar

work performed. Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1672. In determining a reasonable hourly rate in the Second

Circuit, the court is to be guided by what a paying client would be willing to pay. Arbor Hill Concerned

Citizens Neighborhood Ass’n v. Cnty of Albany and Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 522 F.3d 182, 190 (2d

Cir. 2008).

The Second Circuit has instructed that a district court “bear in mind all of the case-specific

variables that [the Second Circuit] and other courts have identified as relevant to the reasonableness of

attorney’s fees in setting a reasonable hourly rate.” Id. This includes the factors set forth in Johnson v.

Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-719 (5th

Cir. 1974). This Court has the discretion to

consider such factors as, “the novelty and difficulty of the questions”, “the results obtained”, and “the

experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys.” Nisby v. Comm’rs Court of Jefferson Cnty, 798 F.2d

134, 136 (5th

Cir. 1986).1 The factors are to be considered within the context of the relevant legal

community, which is traditionally defined as the district in which the case was brought. Rosado v. City of

1 “The twelve [Johnson] factors are: (1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions;

(3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the attorney

due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations

imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience,

reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the undesirability of the case; (11) the nature and length of the

professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases.” Nisby v. Comm’rs Court of Jefferson

Cnty, 798 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir. 1986).


6

New York, No. 11 Civ. 4285 (SAS), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35249, 2012 WL 955510, at *4 (S.D.N.Y.

Mar. 15, 2012).

Ramos plaintiffs respectfully submit that the Favors litigation on the core issues of

reapportionment and redistricting encompassed a complex, highly technical and specialized area of civil

rights practice. It is incontrovertible that redistricting litigation is atypical for many civil rights and civil

law practitioners. These matters are not litigated frequently in-between the decennial census. Few in the

law profession follow or attend to this rarified, yet crucially important subject of law and democratic

governance. In addition, redistricting litigation necessitates the use of demographic and mapping expertise

which requires a certain expertise and ability to finance. LatinoJustice is among the few not-for-profit

non-partisan firms in the nation that has been actively litigating redistricting actions for over thirty five

years.

Given the unique history of governmental discrimination towards New York’s racial and

language minority voters in general, but particularly in the Voting Rights Act Section 5 covered

jurisdictions (New York, The Bronx, and Kings), and the successful prosecution of this redistricting

litigation necessitated familiarity with the jurisprudence of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Moreover, owing to New York's population decreases relative to other regions of the

nation in the past decade based on 2010 Census data, the Empire State had to eliminate two Congressional

districts in the 2011-2012 redistricting cycle adding another level of complexity. Redistricting in New

York State has required the drawing of diverse legislative districts upholding a delicate balance that

complies with federal and state constitutional principles, case law, traditional rules of redistricting, as well

as, Section 5 of the federal Voting Rights Act.


7

In view of the considerable experience in voting rights, civil rights and complex litigation,

that Ramos plaintiffs’ counsel possesses, the application for their proposed rates for fees is justified and

reasonable. See, Declaration of Jackson Chin, and supporting exhibits.

Ramos plaintiffs, through their counsel actively weighed in on various proposed plans and

on the Special Magistrate's Report and Recommendation. LatinoJustice obtained significant benefits for

our clients. As a Latino civil rights legal defense fund serving the larger Latino community, we sought to

uphold constitutional population equality in districting and obtain fairness in political opportunity for the

Latino community. This was underscored by Ramos plaintiffs' submission of their Congressional Unity

Plan, and, the amended Ramos Unity Plan and considered by the Special Master Magistrate Judge and the

Court's expert, Prof. Nathaniel Persily, DE 173, 181 and 235.

The Court's final Congressional redistricting plan was, in part, a product of the broad

calculus of facts, data and analysis, and the collective feedback, input and participation of minority

communities which the Ramos Plaintiffs’ counsel distilled and applied in our submissions to the court.

LatinoJustice’s lawyers and staff worked and consulted with a wide array of Latino community groups,

community leaders, advocates, and numerous elected and public officials. Ramos Plaintiffs’ counsel spent

many additional hours not included in this fees application to provide community education, to support

fair redistricting principles, and to conduct negotiations which ultimately resulted in a fair unified plan

with other stakeholders within the Black and Asian communities of New York, and their respective

representatives and counsel.2

2 These collaborative discussions, guided by minority voting rights veteran practitioners at Latino Justice,

AALDEF, the Center for Law and Social Justice, and others, respected the primacy of political equal opportunity

afforded under the Voting Right Act and the U.S. Constitution. Their non-partisan consensus to advance the fair

creation of districts in New York and maintain diverse communities of interest in compact districts, enabled the

Lee, Drayton and Ramos Intervenor- Plaintiffs to timely present the 2012 Congressional Unity Plan to the Court.


8

Ramos Plaintiffs' had filed an initial submission of a Congressional plan, data charts and

analytical narratives, subsequent comments about the Special Master Magistrate Judge's proposed U. S.

Congressional district plan, and, our objections and review of competing plans provided by the parties to

the Court. Ramos Plaintiffs counsel’s legal analysis was also calibrated to compare retrogression

benchmark data among various plans in order to meet compliance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights

Act, which we believe contributed materially to this Court’s adoption of its final plan.

Based on the nature and complexity of the issues raised in this proceeding, and the

professional legal expertise and qualifications tendered by LatinoJustice attorneys in this matter, we

respectfully submit that their proposed attorneys’ fees are reasonable and consistent with similar awards

in this district. The three attorneys from LatinoJustice in this matter each have over 25 years of litigation

experience. Though LatinoJustice attorneys do not charge their clients any attorneys fees, the

comparable private market rate for Juan Cartagena, an attorney with over 33 year of practice, for

example, would be at least $550 an hour.

The decisions in the Eastern District of New York have found reasonable hourly rates to

be in the range of $200-$600 for partners, $100-$300 for associates, and $70-$100 for legal assistants.

Dowdell v. Imhof, No. 10–CV–1332, 2012 WL 959474, at *2–3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2012); Luca v. Cnty

of Nassau, 698 F. Supp. 2d 296, 301 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)($400 hourly rate held reasonable for lawyer with

25 years’ experience in civil rights practice); Ferrara v. Prof'l Pavers Corp., 11-CV-1433, 2013 WL

1210522 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2013) report and recommendation adopted, 11-CV-1433, 2013 WL 1212816

(E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2013); see also Spence v. Ellis, CV 07-5249, 2012 WL 7660124 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19,

2012) report and recommendation adopted, 07-CV-5249, 2013 WL 867533 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2013);

Vilkhu v. The City of New York, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73696 at *13 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2009)

(describing the range of rates paid to experienced civil rights attorneys as $250 to $600 . . . with average

awards increasing over time.).


9

In setting a reasonable hourly rate, courts in the Second Circuit also take into account case-

specific factors such as the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney. Based on these factors, as

well as the prevailing hourly rates of the Eastern District, Ramos Plaintiffs seek an award of attorneys’

fees that total $142,488.75.75 based on the following hourly rates and hours expended:

II. Ramos Plaintiffs’ Counsel Expended A Reasonable Number of Hours in this Case

Ramos Plaintiffs’ counsel spent a substantial number of hours on this case given the

expedited nature of this litigation. Nonetheless, they are only seeking attorneys’ fees for a reasonable

amount of the hours engaged in this litigation, ad have exercised prudent billing to avoid any duplicated

or non-essential work. They seek attorneys’ fees based on a total of 343.1 hours. As noted in my

declaration about the nature and complexity of the instant litigation, the qualifications of the attorneys,

paucity of practitioners in this specialty practice area, and the acceleration of court deadlines and the

political calendar, we respectfully submit that Ramos plaintiffs’ requested attorneys’ fees rates and the

hours committed to the prosecution of the claims are eminently reasonable and proper.

Ramos plaintiffs have exercised prudent billing judgment and have provided a detailed

document based on contemporaneous records “for each attorney, the date, the hours expended, and the

nature of the work done.” New York State Ass’n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136,

1148 (2d Cir. 1983). The total time expended was reasonable. I have carefully reduced our billing for

excessive, redundant, or unnecessary time spent. As described in the accompanying declaration and

Name Position Rate Hours Billing Amounts

Juan Cartagena General Counsel $550/hr 37.7 $20,020.00

Jose Perez Deputy General Counsel $425/hr 83.9 $34,828.75

Jackson Chin Senior Counsel $400/hr 221.5 $87,640.00

Rodrigo Diaz Law grad/ extern $200/hr 15 $3,000.00

Natalie Knott Law clerk $100/hr 22 $2,200.00


10

exhibits, Ramos Plaintiffs‘ counsel have conservatively calculated their time in this fee application. See,

Declaration of Jackson Chin and Exhibit A.

Moreover, LatinoJustice has waived in excess of 30 hours in billable time expended by its

Redistricting Manager, Senior Legal Assistant and an Administrative Aide for their technical,

administrative and other support. Counsel’s rate for travel time is charged at 50 percent, and we charged

for no more than two LatinoJustice attorneys who appeared at various court hearings in this matter,

although more may have been present.

Costs

Section 1988(b) also entitles a prevailing party to recover reasonable litigation costs, in

addition to reasonable attorneys’ fees. Ramos Plaintiffs seek only $4,270 in costs. LatinoJustice is

waiving its expenses associated with photocopying, postage, and other administrative costs. These costs

are of the type that would generally be recoverable under §1988. Kuzma v. IRS, 821 F.2d 930, 933-34 (2d

Cir. 1987).

Ramos Plaintiffs had retained an expert to provide demographic data analysis, develop

drafts and mapping, and perform statistical analysis in New York’s Congressional redistricting. The total

for the expert's fee is $4,270. See, Exhibit B, Declaration of Asher Ross. Attached.

COSTS

Expert Fees $35 @ 122 hrs $4,270


11

CONCLUSION

Inasmuch as 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988 was enacted to ensure "effective access to the judicial

process" for persons with civil rights grievances, Henseley at 444, citing H.R. Rep. No. 84-1558 (1976),

p.1; U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S., 519 F.2d 359, 364 (3rd Cir. 1975),. Congress and the courts have noted the

important role that civil rights plaintiffs with meritorious claims serve. "[They] appear before the court

cloaked in a mantle of public interest." H.R. Rep. at p. 6 (1976).

The New York State Legislature clearly failed to comply with their constitutional mandate

to timely promulgate a new congressional redistricting plan. This dereliction of constitutional duty was

what gave rise to this case and controversy. Ramos Plaintiffs have in essence acted as private attorneys

general to enforce crucial civil and voting rights on behalf of the Latino community which will greatly

impact the next decade’s political district lines and the representational governance of this state in

Congress.

Ramos plaintiffs prevailed on Counts I and II of their complaint. We successfully

contributed materially to the ultimate outcome of this litigation resulting in the Court’s adoption of the

2012 New York Congressional districts. Without the Ramos plaintiffs’ timely intervention and

submission of their legal arguments and work product, it is highly unlikely that the Court’s redrawing of

the Congressional map would have achieved a final plan that substantially followed the proposals by the

Ramos plaintiffs and created three districts where Latino voters could elect candidates of choice, a result

that may not have been realized had not the judiciary intervened to protect the rights of voters.

The Court clearly recognized the concomitant decennial population growth of Latinos in

New York, and the important need to guarantee fair districts for Latinos who aspire to equal opportunity

for improved political representation in this decade.


12

The final adoption of the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations shows that this

Court heard and registered the concerns and voices of the Ramos plaintiffs. In the end, Latino

Congressional districts were largely preserved and a new Congressional district was drawn to reflect the

emerging plurality of voting age Latinos residing in Central Harlem, Washington Heights and the Bronx.

For the foregoing reasons, Ramos Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant our

application for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dated: New York, New York

December 13, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

99 Hudson Street, 14th Floor

New York, New York 10013

212-219-3360 ext. 7572

www.LatinoJustice.org

Juan Cartagena

Jose Perez

Jackson Chin

By: /s/ Jackson Chin

Jackson Chin


http://www.latinojustice.org/

13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 13th of December, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing

submission with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic

filing to persons electronically noticed. I further certify that the foregoing documents and the Notice of

Electronic Filing will be sent by First Class Mail to the 3 Judge Panel and Magistrate's Court.

/s/ Jackson Chin














