Sena v. CC Communities Colorado, LLC

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying 1 Motion to Vacate Partial Arbitration Award on Plaintiff's Attorney Fee Award, by Judge John L. Kane on 9/13/12. (sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge John L. Kane
Civil Action No. 12-cv02059-JLK

SENA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CC Communities Colorado, LLC,

Defendant
______________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Kane, J.
Claimant moves to vacate Partial Arbitration Award on Plaintiff’s Attorney Fee Award
(Doc. 1). Claimant was the prevailing party in a FLSA case in which he was awarded economic
damages for a little under $30, 000. The Arbitrator further ruled that Claimant was entitled to
attorney fees in an amount “somewhat in excess of 20% of [Claimant’s] claimed fees.” Claimant
takes umbrage because he is not getting full attorney fee compensation. While it is true that
Claimant would be entitled to 100% of his reasonable fees if those fees were only for his FLSA
claims, Claimant also brought and lost common law claims in conjunction with his FLSA action,
and it is because of those, which took up the bulk of counsel’s billing, that the Arbitrator
discounted Claimant’s award.

As I have previously noted, “[j]udicial review of an award following properly conducted
arbitration proceedings is extremely narrow…’ ” Checkrite of San Jose, Inc., v. Checkrite, Ltd.,
640 F.Supp. 234, 235–36, (D.Colo.1986), quoting United Steelworkers of America v. American
Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960). Here, there is no
contention by Claimant that proceedings were improperly conducted; Claimant merely argues
that the discounting was not legally proper. Claimant is in error. It was perfectly permissible for
the Arbitrator to take into consideration the fact that Claimant was unsuccessful with respect to
his resource-intensive common law claims and to reduce his award of attorney fees accordingly.
In Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 431-35, the Supreme Court declared that where the
plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim distinct from his successful claim(s), the hours spent on
the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee.
Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 431-35 (1983). See also Browder v. City of Moab, 427 F.3d
717, 723 (10th Cir. 2005)(“Plaintiff can only obtain an award of attorney fees for time spent
prosecuting the successful claims as well as those related to it.); Gudenkauf v. Stauffer
Communications, Inc. 158 F.3d 1074, 1077 (10th Cir.1998) (affirming trial court’s attorney fee
award of one half of plaintiff’s fee request where the reduction omitted attorney hours spent on
claims the plaintiff lost on summary judgment and that were not directly related to the claim on
which she succeeded at trial). Thus, the Arbitrator had a sound legal basis for reducing the
award. The motion is denied.

Dated: September 13, 2012

BY THE COURT:
/s/John L. Kane
Senior U.S. District Court Judge