7), and that “on September 18, 2012 the plaintiff presented a demand to settle the claim in the amount of $1.5 million dollars” (id. at 5; see also Decl. of Brian Mitchell Ex. C, EOF No. 187-4.). However, defendants offer no authority for the proposition that a court may consider a prior settlement offer as a relevant comparator for determining the prevailing party’s degree of success, and the Second Circuit has held that a “district court should not rely on informal negotiations and hindsight to determine whether further litigation was warranted and, accordingly, whether attorney’s fees should be awarded.” Ortiz v. Regan, 980 F.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir. 1992); see also Siracuse v. Program for the Dev. of Human Potential, No. 07 CV 2205 CLP, 2012 WL 1624291, at *20 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 576 F.Supp.2d 527, 542
recognizing that settlement discussions do not constitute an offer of judgment holding that evidence of settlement may be considered under rule 408 when reviewing a motion for sanctions holding that defendant has failed to provide any support for the novel argument that plaintiff should be denied fees because in defendants view plaintiffs counsel acted unreasonably in failing to accept defendants settlement offer and that consideration of settlement discussions on a motion for attorneys fees is barred by federal rule of evidence 408 holding that money received in settlement refers to the injured persons net recovery after paying attorney fees and costs a client does not receive attorneys fees under the statute because a lawyer has a claim to such fees as soon as a settlement agreement is reached recognizing exceptions in rule 408 as applying to settlement agreements and the occurrence of settlement talks