Federal Appeals Court Upholds $119K Fees and Expenses for $12K Verdict
In awarding the full amount of attorney fees and expenses requested by the plaintiff's counsel, Northern District Judge Mark Cohen had noted the the defendants' “obstreperous conduct and the case having gone to trial.”
January 16, 2019 at 11:16 AM
5 minute read
A federal appeals court upheld lawyers receiving $119,000 in fees and expenses in a case where their client, a waitress, received $12,000 in improperly denied tips and wages.
The unpublished per curiam opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit noted that there was “room to quibble” whether the trial judge should have awarded the full amount of fees sought in the case, and that the “fee-to-judgment ratio is large.”
Nonetheless, Judges Jill Pryor, Britt Grant and R. Lanier Anderson held Tuesday that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by awarding the fees, particularly after ruling that the hours billed were due to the club-owners' “obstreperous conduct and the case having gone to trial.”
“We just had to be persistent,” said Kevin Fitzpatrick Jr., who represented the plaintiff with partner Charles Bridgers of DeLong Caldwell Bridgers & Fitzpatrick. After Judge Mark Cohen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ordered a mediation, “The other side said they weren't going to offer any money at all,” he said. “They wanted to fight.”
Mableton solo McNeill Stokes, represented the defendants, Lacura Bar and Bistro, and owners Alonzo Ross and Lamarcus Allison. Stokes could not be reached to comment.
According to court filings, Shatrailia Jackson worked at the Metropolitan Parkway nightspot from 2014 to 2015, working three or fours shifts a week. She was supposed to be paid $25 per shift plus tips but testified that sometimes she was only paid $20 and was frequently not paid at all.
“Lacura did not record the tips its servers made, did not issue paychecks or paystubs, did not issue tax documents to employees, and did not use a timeclock,” the opinion said.
“It operated as a cash-only business and lacked traditional employment records.”
In March 2015, Jackson filed a putative collective action against Lacura and its owners, asserting counts for failure to pay the minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay other employees similarly situated and retaliatory termination.
According to Lacura's defense filings, the club fully informed Jackson of its pay and tip policy. The defense also claimed that the club was not subject to the FLSA because its annual gross receipts were below the $500,000 threshold to trigger the law.
Fitzgerald explained how the plaintiff's side shot the gross receipts argument.
“First, they showed us figures saying they made like $96,000 a year,” he said. “We subpoenaed the records of every liquor distributor in town and came up with about $350,000 in liquor costs alone.”
“We added up the lease, employee pay and security and got way over the $500,000 that way,” he said.
At trial, he said, the jury was also shown Facebook and Instagram postings “where they're swimming in cash and having money drops,” referring to events in which cash was dropped for patrons.
By the time the case went to trial, only Jackson's FLSA claims remained. The retaliation claim was dismissed prior to trial, and Fitzpatrick said his team made a strategic decision not to pursue the collective action claim.
Following a two-day trial, a jury awarded her $6,308 in unpaid wages.
After the verdict, Jackson filed a motion for liquidated damages and for attorney fees and expenses of $118,894.
Cohen granted both requests, doubling Jackson's damages to $12,616 and awarding the full sum sought by her lawyers.
In upholding Cohen's order, the appellate panel brushed aside Lacura's arguments that it had acted in good faith in compensating Jackson.
“Lacura barely attempts to demonstrate good faith, opting instead to argue that its violation 'cannot be willful' because Jackson 'was paid more than the minimum wage,'” the opinion said.
“This argument is essentially a denial of liability and amounts to an attempt to relitigate the jury's verdict.”
“Lacura kept no payroll records, produced no evidence that it sought or relied upon legal guidance, and did not even track how much money its employees were making in tips.”
The outsize fee award relative to the judgment is not too unusual in FLSA cases, Fitzpatrick said.
“People force us to go to trial on low-dollar wage and hour cases all the time,” he said. “The fee usually greatly exceeds the amount awarded by the jury.”
Noting that Lacura is still obviously a money-making concern, Fitzpatrick nonetheless said collecting the judgment is another matter.
Sounding resigned, he said, “I never know what we're going to collect.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'White Face' Comments by Jussie Smollett's Attorney Weren't Defamation, Judge Rules
5 minute read'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250