Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hays v. French Quarter Partners, LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Hot Springs Division

November 1, 2016

AMANDA HAYS, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFF
v.
FRENCH QUARTER PARTNERS, LLC, Individually and d/b/a FRENCH QUARTER; DALE KLOSS a/k/a DUKE KLOSS, Individually and d/b/a FRENCH QUARTER, DEFENDANTS

          ORDER

          Susan O. Hickey, United States District

         Before the Court is Plaintiff Amanda Hays' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (ECF No. 37). Defendants have responded. (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff has replied. (ECF No. 41). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.

         BACKGROUND

         On June 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 207 et seq., and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (“AMWA”), Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-211, et seq. (ECF No. 1). The Complaint sought the creation of a collective action pursuant to Section 216 of the FLSA, as well as a class action pursuant to the AMWA and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. On November 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 23). Pursuant to Plaintiff's acceptance of the offer of judgment from Defendants, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff against Defendants in the amount of $16, 940.00. (ECF No. 36).

         Plaintiff then filed the instant motion requesting approval of her attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks an order from the Court awarding $13, 555.50 for attorneys' fees and costs. In addition, Plaintiff submitted an itemized list of services billed by her attorneys in this matter and a declaration signed by Attorney Josh Sanford (“Sanford”). (ECF Nos. 37-1 and 37-2).

         The records that accompany Plaintiff's motion indicate that Plaintiff initially incurred attorneys' fees in the amount of $17, 893.50. However, Plaintiff asserts that she is only requesting an award for $13, 031.50 in attorneys' fees “[a]fter subtracting fees incurred performing duplicative or unnecessary work.[1]” (ECF No. 38, p. 5). Plaintiff states that the $13, 031.50 total includes: Attorney Josh Sanford's (“Sanford”) fees totaling $5, 365.00 for 18.5 hours at an hourly rate of $290.00; Attorney Steve Rauls' (“Rauls”) fees totaling $4, 938.75 for 21.95 hours at an hourly rate of $225.00; Attorney Maryna Jackson's (“Jackson”) fees totaling $2, 328.75 for 10.35 hours at an hourly rate of $225.00; “Other Attorneys'” fees totaling $363.00 for 2.1 hours at a blended rate of 172.86; and staff fees totaling $36.00 for 0.6 hours at an hourly rate of $60.00. Id. In addition, Plaintiff requests reimbursement of $524.00 in costs. Id.

         Defendants filed a response to the motion and make a host of objections to Plaintiff's requested fee. Specifically, Defendants ask the Court to reject Sanford's fee request as unreasonable due to a lack of evidence that $290 per hour is an ordinary rate or prevailing market rate for similar work in the community. In addition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees for work performed after the offer of judgment should be denied. Defendants also argue that no attorneys' fees should be awarded, or in the alternative substantially reduced, for work related to class certification because neither class materialized and only one plaintiff was ever a party to the lawsuit. Defendants cite additional reasons for reducing the amount of attorneys' fees such as duplicative tasks, excessive intra-firm communication, administrative tasks that could have been completed in a more economical manner by support staff, as well as the “fact that counsel did very little original drafting” in the case. (ECF No. 39, pp. 3-4).

         DISCUSSION

         In an action brought pursuant to the FLSA, a prevailing party is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to be paid by the defendant. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to an award of attorneys' fees in this matter. However, the amount of such an award is left to the discretion of the Court. Fegly v. Higgins, 19 F.3d 1126, 1134 (6th Cir. 1994).

         In determining the reasonableness of an attorneys' fee award, a “district court [is] required to first calculate a lodestar, by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended on litigation by a reasonable hourly rate, and to then consider whether the lodestar amount should be reduced, based on appropriate considerations.” Jones v. RK Enterprises of Blytheville, Inc., 632 F.App'x 306, 307 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983)). The United States Supreme Court has set forth twelve factors to be considered when making a lodestar determination: (1) time and labor required; (2) novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) preclusion of other employment, due to acceptance of case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the 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. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 430 n.3.

         A. Reasonable Hourly Rate

         First, Defendants contend that the hourly rate of $290 for work performed by Sanford is unreasonable. In support of this contention, Defendants point to the Court's award of attorneys' fees in Whitworth v. French, No. 6:13-cv-06003 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 19, 2014) in which the Court found Sanford's prior hourly rate of $275.00 to be reasonable. As noted above, Sanford submitted an affidavit that informs the Court of his prior experience handling wage and hour litigation throughout the country. The affidavit further explains that Sanford's requested hourly rate is consistent with hourly rates of other attorneys with similar experience and qualifications in the Western District of Arkansas. Additionally, previous opinions and orders within the Western District have found that Sanford's requested rate is within the range of reasonableness for similar work performed by attorneys of similar qualifications in the area. See Burchell v. Green Cab Co., Inc., No. 5:15-cv-05076, 2016 WL 894825, at *2 (W.D. Ark. Mar. 8, 2016). In light of the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that Sanford's requested hourly rate of $290 is reasonable and appropriate.[2]

         B. Hours Expended

         Next, Defendants raise numerous objections to demonstrate that Plaintiff's attorneys expended an unreasonable number of hours in this matter. First, Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claims for attorneys' fees for work performed after the date of the Rule 68 offer of judgment should be denied. Defendants cite Burchell in support of the proposition ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.