Jones v. RK Enterprises of Blytheville Inc et al

Filing 78

ORDER denying 76 Motion for Reconsideration in all respects. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 4/7/2016. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
TRISTA JONES
VS.

PLAINTIFF
3:13-CV-00252-BRW

RK ENTERPRISES OF
BLYTHEVILLE, INC., et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 76) of the order awarding attorneys’
fees and costs is DENIED. However, one issue needs to be clarified.
The “Limited Success” portion of the order reads:
Though Plaintiff was successful on her FLSA claim, the results obtained were a
fraction of her demand. Plaintiff argued that she was entitled to $88,338.64 but
recovered only $7,876.06. This recovery is less than 10% of Plaintiff’s demand.
Basically, by going to trial she obtained liquidated damages and amassed hours of
attorneys’ fees.1
Plaintiff contends that the above analysis is at odds with Simpson v. Merchants &
Planters Bank,2 where the Eighth Circuit noted that it had “explicitly rejected a ‘rule of
proportionality’ in civil rights cases because tying the attorney’s fees to the amount awarded
would discourage litigants with small amounts of damages from pursuing a civil rights claim in
court.”3
However, the purpose of this Fair Labor Standards Act case was recovery of private
damages. “Where recovery of private damages is the purpose of . . . civil rights litigation, a
district court, in fixing fees, is obligated to give primary consideration to the amount of damages

1

Doc. No. 73-2.

2

441 F.3d 572 (8th Cir. 2006).

3

Id. at 581.
1

awarded as compared to the amount sought.”4 Plaintiff requested $44,169.32 in compensatory
damages, $44,169.32 in liquidated damages,5 and punitive damages “in an amount triple to the
amount of compensatory damage.”6 Altogether, Plaintiff sought damages of $220,846.60. She
was awarded $7,876.06 – an award she did not appeal. “[A]lthough the fee award need not be
proportionate to the amount of damages a plaintiff actually recovers, it is a factor that a court
should consider when contemplating a reduction of the modified lodestar amount.”7
Accordingly, the fact that Plaintiff recovered less than 4% of the amount sought was properly
considered.
CONCLUSION
In fine, Plaintiff’s somewhat8 intemperate Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 76) is in
all respects DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2016.
/s/ Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 585 (1986) (Powell, J., concurring in judgment).

5

This total of $88,338.64 does not include the $7,000 Plaintiff obtained before trial.

6

Doc. No. 30. This would have totaled $132,507.96 ($44,169.32 x 3). However, the
punitive damages request was denied after the parties rested.
7

Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 175 F.3d 544, 558 (7th Cir. 1999) (an FLSA
case); see also Caudle v. Bristow Optical Co., 224 F.3d 1014, 1029 n.11 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting
that it is inappropriate for a court to reduce a fee award simply because damages are small, but
that it is permissible to reduce an award where the amount of recovery is modest relative to the
amount initially sought).
8

Speaking euphemistically.
2