The opinion of the court was delivered by: Politan, District Judge.
ORIGINAL ON FILE WITH CLERK OF THE COURT
This matter comes before the Court on three separate motions,
namely: (1) Defendant New York City Health and Hospitals
Corporation's Motion to Amend the Judgment entered on August 18,
1998 by this Court; (2) counsel of record for plaintiff Cityside
Archives, Ltd.'s Motion for Attorney's Fees; and (3) counsel of
record for plaintiff Cityside Archives, Ltd.'s Motion to be
Relieved as Counsel. This Court heard oral argument on October
29, 1998. For the reasons stated herein, defendant New York City
Health and Hospitals Corporation's Motion to Amend the Judgment
is GRANTED. Additionally, counsel of record for plaintiff
Cityside Archives, Ltd.'s Motion for Attorney's Fees is GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Finally, counsel of record for
plaintiff Cityside Archives, Ltd.'s Motion to Be Relieved as
Counsel is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
STATEMENT OF FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Cityside Archives, Ltd. ("Cityside"), a corporation
engaged in the business of archival storage and warehousing, and
defendant Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center ("Lincoln")
entered into a contract for the storage of certain records (the
"Agreement"). The Agreement was signed by a Lincoln
representative on February 24, 1994 and by a Cityside
representative on February 25, 1994. Defendant New York City
Health and Hospital Corporation ("NYCHHC") is a New York public
benefit corporation which supervises certain activities of
several member hospitals, including Lincoln.
On November 13, 1995, Cityside filed a Complaint against NYCHHC
and Lincoln. Cityside maintained the position that Lincoln ceased
making payments to Cityside for various invoices for storage and
related services which Cityside allegedly performed. Essentially,
Cityside claimed that Lincoln was obligated to store its x-rays
(hereinafter the "Lincoln x-rays") with Cityside and to obtain a
release to Cityside of non-x-ray or paper records stored at
Pierce Leahy (hereinafter the "Pierce records"). Accordingly,
Cityside set forth several counts in the Complaint: (1) breach of
contract; (2) fraud; (3) breach of covenant of good faith and
fair dealing; and (4) tortious interference with contract.
Cityside also sought specific performance and $382,879.96 in
"past due rent, current rent, rent to the end of the term and
permanent removal charges." See Complaint filed November 13,
1995.
On August 18, 1998, this Court entered judgment in favor of
Cityside but refrained from entering a final judgment until
counsel for Cityside, Mr. Leonard Berkeley, provided the Court
with affidavits of services rendered that included only those
fees incurred in connection with the Pierce records portion of
the litigation.
Thereafter, Mr. Berkeley filed two separate motions; a Motion
to be Relieved as Counsel and a Motion for Attorney's Fees.
NYCHHC also filed a Motion to Amend the Court's Judgment and
filed several briefs in opposition to Mr. Berkeley's Motion for
Attorney's Fees.
Despite this Court's instructions to submit an itemized list of
fees incurred only in connection with the Pierce records, on
September 29, 1998, Mr. Leonard Berkeley, submitted a letter
brief and a Supplemental Certification in support of the Motion
for Attorney's Fees. In his letter brief, Mr. Berkeley once again
indicated that he was relying upon the previously-submitted
Certification of Services and reiterated that, "[t]here was
virtually no time spent exclusively on the issues of either the
Lincoln records stored at Pierce Leahy or the Lincoln u-rays
stored at Pierce Leahy." See September 29, 1998 letter brief
submitted by Leonard Berkeley, Esq., pages 1-2; see also original
Certification dated June 12, 1998. In the Supplemental
Certification, Mr. Berkeley contended that, "It is my belief, and
only a belief, that perhaps 10% of the time, if that much was
related to the issue of the [Lincoln] x-ray storage." See
Supplemental Certification dated September 29, 1998, ¶ 4.
Upon review of Mr. Berkeley's letter brief and Supplemental
Certification, this Court once again contacted Mr. Berkeley's
office, via telephone, and inquired into whether Mr. Berkeley had
any intention of complying with this Court's direction to focus
only on the attorney's fees accrued in connection with the Pierce
Leahy records. Mr. Berkeley represented that he was relying on
the September 29, 1998 letter brief submitted, the Supplemental
Certification, as well as, the original Certification of Services
and Exhibit # 228 (a mass of paper two-inches thick typed in the
most microscopic print). Mr. Berkeley memorialized this
conversation in a brief letter to the Court and enclosed an
additional copy of the referenced documents for ease of
reference. See October 8, 1998 letter submitted by Leonard
Berkeley, Esq. and attached documents.
Subsequent to NYCHHC being given the opportunity to oppose the
Motion for Attorney's Fees, Mr. Berkeley then filed an additional
Certification on October 19, 1998 wherein he reiterated that,
"For the reasons set forth herein it is truly believed that
Cityside is entitled to all of the counsel fees requested in its
prior submission." See Certification of Leonard Berkeley dated
October 19, 1998, ¶ 16.
Essentially, Mr. Berkeley maintains the position that virtually
no time was spent on matters unrelated to the Pierce records and,
accordingly, requests that this Court grant counsel's request for
attorney's fees in the amount of $630,703.40.
I. Motion to Amend the Judgment
A proper motion to alter or amend a judgment "must rely on one
of three major grounds: `(1)an intervening change in controlling
law; (2) the availability of new evidence [not available
previously]; or (3) the need to correct clear error [of law] or
prevent manifest injustice.'" North River Insurance Company v.
CIGNA Reinsurance Company, 52 F.3d 1194 (3d Cir. 1995)(citing
Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Envtl. Protection
Agency, 705 F. Supp. 698, 702 (D.D.C. 1989)(quoting All Hawaii
Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 649
(D.Haw. 1987), rev'd on oth. grds, 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1988),
vacated on oth. grds., 707 F. Supp. 3 (D.D.C. 1989))).
With regard to the removal charges, this Court held that
Cityside would have received $14.75 per storage unit, plus $1.00
per storage unit in computer-related charges at the end of the
storage term when the records were released. When the Court
multiplied the number of storage units (2,327) by the
aforementioned figures, the Court determined that Cityside was
entitled to $36,650.25 in removal charges of the Pierce records.
NYCHHC contends that the damage award with respect to the
removal charges in favor of Cityside should be reduced by the
amount of $11,778.13*fn1 because the present amount awarded to
Cityside represents a "windfall" not permitted in a breach of
contract action. More specifically, NYCHHC asserts that this
Court's calculation of Cityside's damages did not take into
account the fact that Cityside never paid Pierce Leahy's removal
charges because Cityside never actually transferred the records
stored with that vendor. NYCHHC argues that "since Cityside would
have had to pay Pierce Leahy's removal charges before
transferring those records, the Court's Judgment actually ...