Ruiz-Romero v. Hotel Aloft Ponce et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
ERNESTO RUIZ-ROMERO,
Plaintiff,
v.
HOTEL ALOFT PONCE, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB)
MEMORANDUM 	AND 	ORDER
BESOSA, Senior District Judge.
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	plaintiff 	Ernesto 	Ruiz-Romero
(“plaintiff”)’s 	motion 	for 	attorneys’ 	fees. 	(Docket 	No. 	112.)
For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	plaintiff’s 	motion 	is 	GRANTED 	IN 	PART
and DENIED IN PART. 	Plaintiff is awarded a total of $10,650.00 in
attorneys’ fees.
I. 	Background
Plaintiff 	sued 	defendants 	Hotel 	Aloft 	Ponce, 	JJ 	Security
Corp., 	and 	A.L. 	Sports 	Events 	Corp. 	(collectively, 	“defendants”)
for 	violating 	his 	rights 	as 	an 	employee 	under 	the 	Americans 	with
Disabilities 	Act, 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 12101 	et 	seq., 	Puerto 	Rico 	Law 	44,
Puerto 	Rico 	Laws 	Ann. 	tit. 	1, 	§ 501 	et 	seq., 	Puerto 	Rico 	Law 	80,
Puerto 	Rico 	Laws 	Ann. 	tit. 	29, 	§ 185a 	et 	seq., 	and 	Puerto 	Rico
Law 115, Puerto Rico Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 194 et seq. 	See Docket
No. 	1; 	Docket 	No. 	64. 	The 	defendants 	failed 	to 	respond 	to 	the
complaint 	and 	default 	was 	entered 	against 	each 	of 	them. 	(Docket
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 9

Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB) 	2
No. 	73.) 	The 	Court 	held 	a 	jury 	trial 	on 	May 	20, 	2025, 	and 	the
jury 	awarded 	plaintiff 	a 	total 	of 	$1,167,572.00 	in 	damages. 	See
Docket 	No. 	96. 	After 	judgment 	was 	entered, 	plaintiff 	sought
attorneys’ 	fees. 	See 	Docket 	No. 	107. 	The 	Court 	allocated 	his
damages 	to 	his 	Title 	VII 	claim 	and 	requested 	briefing 	on
calculating 	a 	reasonable 	attorney 	fee 	using 	the 	lodestar 	method.
See Docket No. 111. 	Plaintiff complied on December 29, 2025. 	See
Docket No. 112. 	Defendants did not oppose plaintiff’s request for
attorneys’ fees.
II. 	Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 “allows a prevailing party
to 	move 	for 	attorneys’ 	fees 	after 	the 	entry 	of 	judgment.” 	Cheng
v. 	Neumann, 	106 	F.4th 	19, 	23 	(1st 	Cir. 	2024). 	“The 	default 	rule
in 	American 	litigation 	is 	that 	all 	litigants 	must 	pay 	their 	own
fees.” 	Fontanillas-López v. Bauzá-Cartagena, 832 F.3d 50, 59 (1st
Cir. 2016). 	Title VII provides an exception; it allows a court to
award “the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee[.]”
42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2000e-5(k). 	“[T]he 	method 	of 	choice 	for 	calculating
fee awards” in Title VII cases is the lodestar method. 	Pérez-Sosa
v. 	Garland, 	22 	F.4th 	312, 	321 	(1st 	Cir. 	2022). 	Pursuant 	to 	the
lodestar 	method, 	“the 	number 	of 	hours 	reasonably 	expended 	on 	the
litigation 	[are] 	multiplied 	by 	a 	reasonable 	hourly 	rate.” 	Efron
v. 	Mora 	Dev. 	Corp., 	44 	F.4th 	72, 	76 	(1st 	Cir. 	2022). 	“The 	court
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 9

Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB) 	3
may 	then 	elect 	to 	adjust 	the 	lodestar 	amount, 	either 	upward 	or
downward, 	if 	the 	specific 	circumstances 	of 	the 	case 	warrant 	such
an adjustment.” 	Pérez-Sosa, 22 F.4th at 321.
The Court determines the number of hours reasonably expended
by 	looking 	at 	the 	attorney’s 	billing 	records 	for 	the 	case. 	See
P.R. 	Soccer 	League 	NFP, 	Corp. 	v. 	Federación 	Puertorriqueña 	de
Fútbol, Civil No. 23-1203 (RAM), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188130, at
*6 	(D.P.R. 	Sept. 	23, 	2025) 	(Arias, 	C.J.) 	(“[A]ttorneys 	should
submit 	a 	full 	and 	precise 	accounting 	of 	their 	time, 	including
specific information about number of hours, dates, and the nature
of the work performed.”) 	Hours that are “excessive, redundant, or
otherwise unnecessary” are excluded. 	Pérez-Sosa, 22 F.4th at 321.
“Time records that are too generic and insufficient as a practical
matter to permit a court to answer questions about excessiveness,
redundancy, and the like[,] should be discounted or disallowed[.]”
García-Colón 	v. 	Corp. 	of 	the 	State 	Ins. 	Fund, 	Civil 	No. 	21-1211
(RAM), 	2024 	U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS 	201549, 	at 	*8 	(D.P.R. 	Nov. 	4, 	2024)
(Arias, 	C.J.) 	(citing 	Pérez-Sosa, 	22 	F.4th 	at 	330) 	(internal
quotation marks omitted).
“District 	courts 	have 	wide 	discretion 	in 	selecting 	fair 	and
reasonable hourly rates for attorney time.” 	Pérez-Sosa, 22 F.4th
at 	326. 	A 	reasonable 	hourly 	rate 	is 	“often 	benchmarked 	to 	the
prevailing 	rates 	in 	the 	community 	for 	lawyers 	of 	like
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 9

Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB) 	4
qualifications, experience, and competence.” 	Id. at 321. 	“A court
may 	assign 	different 	rates 	to 	time 	spent 	in-court 	and 	out-of-
court, with in-court time carrying a higher hourly rate than out-
of-court 	time.” 	García-Colón, 	2024 	U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS 	201549,
at *14. 	An attorney’s rate increases over time as he or she gains
experience. 	See 	Bd. 	of 	Trs. 	V. 	ILA 	Local 	1740, 	AFL-CIO, 	Civ.
No. 18-1598 	(SCC), 	2022 	U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS 	179791, 	at 	*11 	(D.P.R.
Sept. 30, 2022) (Carreño, J.) 	The hourly rate may also be adjusted
upward 	or 	downward 	to 	account 	for 	whether 	the 	issues 	in 	the 	case
were straightforward or complex. 	See Pérez-Sosa, 22 F.4th at 325
(“[T]he 	reasonable 	hourly 	rate 	in 	any 	given 	case 	will 	vary
depending on the nature of the work[.]”) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
III. Discussion
Plaintiff requests a total attorney fee award of $19,062.50.
Attorney Enrique J. Mendoza-Méndez (“Mendoza-Méndez”) claimed 8.0
hours 	for 	in-court 	work 	and 	33.2 	hours 	for 	out-of-court 	work.
(Docket 	No. 	112-4 	at 	p. 	2.) 	He 	requests 	a 	rate 	of 	$350 	per 	hour
for 	in-court 	work 	and 	$325 	per 	hour 	for 	out-of-court 	work, 	for 	a
total fee of $13,590.00. 	Id. 	Attorney Enrique J. Mendoza-Sánchez
(“Mendoza-Sánchez”) 	claimed 	8.0 	hours 	for 	in-court 	work 	and 	4.5
hours for out-of-court work. 	Id. at p. 3. 	He requests a rate of
$250 per hour for in-court work and $225 per hour for out-of-court
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 9

Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB) 	5
work, 	for 	a 	total 	fee 	of 	$3,012.50. 	Id. 	Attorney 	Gilberto 	J.
Oliveras-Maldonado 	(“Oliveras-Maldonado”) 	claimed 	8.0 	hours 	for
in-court 	work 	and 	3.7 	hours 	for 	out-of-court 	work. 	Id. 	at 	p. 	4.
He requests a rate of $215 per hour for in-court work and $200 per
hour for out-of-court work, for a total fee of $2,460.00. 	Id.
Because 	plaintiff 	is 	clearly 	the 	prevailing 	party 	in 	this
case 	and 	his 	request 	for 	attorneys’ 	fees 	is 	unopposed, 	the 	Court
moves on to determine an appropriate attorney fee award.
A. 	Number of Hours Reasonably Expended
The 	Court 	will 	adjust 	the 	hours 	claimed 	by 	plaintiff’s
attorneys pursuant to the table below. 	Each entry listed will be
credited 	with 	the 	number 	of 	hours 	displayed 	in 	the 	“Court’s
Adjusted Hours” column. 	Any entry not listed in the table will be
credited in full.
Date 	Timekeeper 	Description 	Hours
Claimed
Court’s
Adjusted
Hours
4/10/2024 	Mendoza-
Méndez
Preparation 	and 	filing 	of 	FRCP
55(b)(2) 	notices 	and 	supporting
exhibits (Dkt. 66)
1.3 	0.2
4/30/2024 	Mendoza-
Méndez
Drafting 	and 	filing 	of 	motion
Submitting Plaintiff’s motion and
memorandum 	of 	law 	on 	pending
matters 	be 	deemed 	as 	submitted
unopposed 	and 	that 	default 	jury
trial be scheduled (Dkt. 70)
0.8 	0.4
6/28/2024 	Mendoza-
Méndez
Preparation 	and 	filing 	of 	FRCP
55(b)(2) 	notices 	and 	supporting
exhibits (Dkt. 82)
0.3 	0.2
11/20/2024 	Mendoza-
Méndez
Preparation 	and 	filing 	of 	FRCP
55(b)(2) 	notices 	and 	supporting
exhibits (Dkt. 86)
0.3 	0.2
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 9

Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB) 	6
Date 	Timekeeper 	Description 	Hours
Claimed
Court’s
Adjusted
Hours
4/16/2025 	Mendoza-
Méndez
Preparation 	and 	filing 	of 	FRCP
55(b)(2) 	notices 	and 	supporting
exhibits (Dkt. 89)
0.3 	0.2
5/15/2025 	Mendoza-
Méndez
Informative 	Motion 	regarding
Evidence with Exhibit (Dkt. 93)
0.9 	0.4
5/19/2025 	Mendoza-
Sánchez
Preparation for Trial 	3.0 	1.5
5/20/2025 	Mendoza-
Sánchez
Jury Trial 	8.0 	0.0
5/19/2025 	Oliveras-
Maldonado
Review of full docket; and notice
of appearance
1.2 	0.0
5/19/2025 	Oliveras-
Maldonado
Preparation for Trial 	2.5 	0.0
5/20/2025 	Oliveras-
Maldonado
Jury Trial 	8.0 	0.0
The Court finds that Mendoza-Méndez’s claimed hours are
largely 	reasonable, 	but 	a 	few 	entries 	are 	excessive. 	His
FRCP 55(b)(2) 	notices 	and 	exhibits 	are 	straightforward, 	two-page
documents 	involving 	minimal 	drafting, 	and 	discounts 	the 	time
credited 	for 	these 	activities 	to 	0.2 	hours 	each. 	See 	Docket
Nos. 66, 	82, 	86, 	89. 	The 	motion 	requesting 	for 	plaintiff’s
memorandum 	of 	law 	to 	be 	deemed 	unopposed 	was 	just 	over 	one 	page
long and required minimal analysis. 	See Docket No. 70. 	The Court
reduces 	this 	entry 	by 	50%, 	from 	0.8 	hours 	to 	0.4 	hours. 	And 	the
informative motion regarding evidence, two pages in total, simply
noted 	that 	plaintiff 	would 	rely 	only 	on 	testimonial 	evidence 	at
trial and that he would be the only testifying witness. 	See Docket
No. 93. 	The Court reduces this entry from 0.9 hours to 0.4 hours.
Accordingly, 	Mendoza-Méndez’s 	hours 	out 	of 	court 	will 	be 	reduced
to 30.9 hours in total.
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 9

Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB) 	7
As 	for 	Mendoza-Sánchez, 	he 	did 	not 	speak 	at 	all 	during
the trial apart from stating his name. 	His claimed 8.0 hours for
in-court work will not be credited. 	He also claimed 3.0 hours for
“preparation for trial.” 	This entry is too generic and vague for
the 	Court 	to 	assess 	whether 	the 	time 	spent 	was 	redundant. 	Also,
because the case was unopposed and he did not speak at all during
the trial, claiming 3.0 hours is excessive. 	Accordingly, Mendoza-
Sánchez’s 	“preparation 	for 	trial” 	entry 	will 	be 	reduced 	to 	1.5
hours.
The Court finds that attorney Oliveras-Maldonado’s hours
should 	not 	be 	included 	in 	the 	fee 	award. 	Oliveras-Maldonado 	did
not file anything on the docket or say anything during the trial,
apart 	from 	stating 	his 	name. 	Because 	the 	case 	was 	unopposed,
having a third attorney assigned to it was excessive and redundant.
Accordingly, Oliveras-Maldonado’s 8.0 hours for in-court work and
3.7 hours for out-of-court work will not be credited.
Below 	is 	a 	summary 	of 	the 	hours 	that 	the 	Court 	will
credit in calculating plaintiff’s attorney fee award:
Attorney 	Hours In Court 	Hours Out of Court
Mendoza-Méndez 	8.0 	30.9
Mendoza-Sánchez 	0.0 	3.0
Oliveras-Maldonado 	0.0 	0.0
B. 	Reasonable Hourly Rates
Plaintiff’s 	proposed 	hourly 	rates 	($350 	for 	in-court
work, $300 for out-of-court work for Mendoza-Méndez, $225 for out-
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 7 of 9

Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB) 	8
of-court work for Mendoza-Sánchez) are on the higher end of awarded
rates in this district. 	See, e.g., García-Colón, 2024 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 201549, at *17-18 (awarding the lead attorney $335 per hour
for 	in-court 	work 	and 	$320 	per 	hour 	for 	out-of-court 	work, 	and 	a
junior 	partner 	$210 	per 	hour 	for 	in-court 	work 	and 	$195 	per 	hour
for out-of-court work); Carrero v. Molina Healthcare of P.R., Inc.,
737 	F. 	Supp. 	3d 	135, 	146 	(D.P.R. 	2024) 	(Arias, 	C.J.) 	(“In 	the
District of Puerto Rico, an approximate range of typical rates for
highly experienced attorneys is $250-300, for associates $150-200,
and for paralegals and law clerks $50-100”); ILA Local 1740, AFL-
CIO, 	2022 	U.S. 	Dist. 	LEXIS 	179791, 	at 	*10-11 	(awarding 	Mendoza-
Méndez $300 per hour for in-court work and $275 per hour for out-
of-court work). 	Although both Mendoza-Méndez and Mendoza-Sánchez
have 	extensive 	experience 	and 	notable 	credentials, 	the 	fact 	that
this 	case 	was 	uncontested 	simplified 	it 	considerably.
Accordingly, 	the 	Court 	adjusts 	the 	hourly 	rates 	downward 	as
follows:
Attorney 	Hourly Rate (In Court) 	Hourly Rate (Out of Court)
Mendoza-Méndez 	$300 	$250
Mendoza-Sánchez 	N/A 	$175
C. 	Computation
Multiplying 	the 	adjusted 	hours 	by 	the 	adjusted 	hourly
rates 	yields 	an 	attorney 	fee 	award 	of 	$10,125.00 	for 	Mendoza-
Méndez 	($2,400.00 	for 	in-court 	work, 	$7,725.00 	for 	out-of-court
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 8 of 9

Civil No. 22-1526 (FAB) 	9
work) and $525.00 for Mendoza-Sánchez (all for out-of-court work),
for a total award of $10,650.00.
IV. 	Conclusion
For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees
(Docket No. 112) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 	Plaintiff
is awarded a total of $10,650.00 in attorneys’ fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 4, 2026.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:22-cv-01526-FAB Document 114 Filed 02/04/26 Page 9 of 9