X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s reduction in the requested amount of attorney’s fees, awarded pursuant to the settlement of an alleged Fair Labor Standards Act violation. Stephen Saizan, Russell Hooge and Rodolfo Garcia, plaintiffs-appellants, asserted that the Fair Labor Standards Act covered the jobs they performed as batch men and that Delta Concrete Products Co. Inc., defendant-appellee, denied them compensation for overtime under the FLSA. The parties disputed the correct method of calculating the overtime compensation that plaintiffs alleged they were owed. Delta Concrete urged the use of the fluctuating workweek method, resulting in a total value of $15,619, while plaintiffs urged the court to adopt a method that would have resulted in a recovery of $156,000. Prior to trial in August 2002, the court ruled that if plaintiffs established liability, the court would use the fluctuating workweek formula to compute the overtime wages due. Mediation and other settlement efforts were unsuccessful and the case proceeded to trial. The jury’s partial verdict did not resolve the question of Delta Concrete’s liability under FLSA. However, based on the evidence presented at trial, the court issued an opinion, finding in favor of Delta Concrete on the issue of liquidated damages. Prior to the commencement of the second trial, the parties notified the court that they had agreed to settle plaintiffs’ principal demands for $20,000, including costs, and reserved the determination of appropriate attorneys fees. The district court issued an order on Jan. 25, 2005, which incorporated the documents and terms of the parties’ settlement into the record, and referred the matter back to the magistrate judge for a determination of an appropriate fee award. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. �216(b), plaintiffs filed a motion to recover all fees generated as a result of the litigation before the district and appellate courts. In addition, plaintiffs sought a multiplier of one and one-half based on the four factors of Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974). Delta Concrete opposed the motion essentially arguing that Plaintiffs were only entitled to a nominal award of attorneys fees based on the results they obtained in the settlement and in the course of the litigation. Concurring with the magistrate judge, the district court denied plaintiffs’ request for an award of costs, reduced the lodestar amount by approximately $100,000, and granted plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees, in the amount of $13,000. Plaintiffs now appeal the amount of attorneys fees awarded, praying for $114,057 plus judicial interest from the date of the district court’s order. HOLDING:Affirmed. Reviewing the time records, the district court faulted the plaintiffs for vagueness, duplicative work and not indicating time written off as excessive or unproductive. Plaintiffs argue that the lodestar amount should not be reduced for neglecting to list unbilled time. The district court neither committed clear error by finding a failure to provide evidence of billing judgment nor abused its discretion by imposing a 10 percent reduction in the lodestar, the court finds. The court quotes from Migis v. Pearle Vision, 135 F.3d 1041 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983); where “a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the product of hours reasonably expended on the litigation as a whole times a reasonable hourly rate may be an excessive amount. This will be true even where the plaintiff’s claims were interrelated, non-frivolous, and raised in good faith.” The settlement agreement does not contain an admission of liability. Also, plaintiffs failed to convince the court that they deserved overtime compensation, that the fluctuating worksheet method of calculating the amount of overtime compensation did not apply, that Delta Concrete willfully violated the wage hour law, or that Delta Concrete owed liquidated damages. Consequently, the district court did not err in reducing the fee award. Plaintiffs urge that the amount of attorneys fees should not depend on the size of the damage award. The district court had ample reason to reduce the fee award, not relying solely on the low settlement amount but also on plaintiffs’ failure to establish billing judgment and inability to prove any element of the case. The extent of the reduction does not rise to the level of an abuse of discretion. OPINION:Per curiam; Higginbotham, DeMoss and Owen, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.