Tillman v. Advanced Public Safety, Inc. et al

Filing 291

OPINION AND ORDER ON ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEY'S FEES AND ORDER REFERRING 279 Plaintiff's MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Kim Peter Tillman. Motions referred to Judge William Matthewman. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 6/18/2018. (ir)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 15-81782-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN
KIM PETER TILLMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADVANCED PUBLIC SAFETY, INC., and
TRIMBLE, INC.,
Defendants.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER ON ENTITLEMENT TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
REFERRAL TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN
This cause is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion For Entitlement to Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs [DE 279]. The motion is ripe for the Court’s consideration. The Court has reviewed
all papers submitted in connection with the motion, the entire file, and is otherwise duly advised
in the premises.
The Court previously held that Defendant Advanced Public Safety was entitled to recover
its attorneys’ fees pursuant to the Representative Agreement it had with Plaintiff, after the Court
granted summary judgment as to all contract claims allegedly arising out of the Representative
Agreement between Plaintiff and Advanced Public Safety. [DE 273].1 The Court found no basis
to preclude the enforcement of the contractual provision in the Representative Agreement
permitting the prevailing party to recover attorneys’ fees. Defendant’s entitlement to these fees
arose under the contract. For purposes of the claim based on that contract, the prevailing party
1

Familiarity with the Court’s prior orders in this case is assumed.
1

was Advanced Public Safety.
The Court noted that the fact that Plaintiff had other contract claims as to which he
prevailed, which were unrelated to the Representative Agreement, did not alter this result. The
Court stated that Plaintiff also might be entitled to attorneys’ fees, and that this was no different
from situations in litigation where parties have offsetting claims against one another.
Plaintiff now moves pursuant to Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 7.3 of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida for his attorneys’ fees and
costs. The Parties do not disagree relative to his entitlement thereto, rather, they disagree as to
the scope of those fees.
Having succeeded on his Florida Whistleblower claim, and his breach of contract claim
under Iowa law, Plaintiff seeks his fees and costs pursuant to Section 448.104, Fla. Stat. as to the
former, and Iowa Code §91A.8 as to the latter. Defendants agree that Plaintiff is entitled to
attorneys’ fees under these provisions. [DE 286 at ¶ 2].
Defendants disagree with Plaintiff, however, as to the scope of those fees. Defendants
argue that it is inappropriate to permit Plaintiff to recover fees and costs as to the portion of his
breach of contract claim that was dismissed upon Defendants’ summary judgment motion. [DE
286 at ¶8]. To do so, Defendants argue, would essentially invalidate this Court’s order granting
Defendant Advanced Public Safety Inc.’s entitlement to fees as to this issue. [Id. at ¶10].
Plaintiff replies that Defendants’ analysis constitutes a misapplication of the Iowa Wage
Payment Collection Act and would undermine the remedial purpose of the Act. [DE 290].
Although Iowa Code §91A.8 makes an award of attorneys’ fees mandatory in successful
wage claim litigation, such reimbursement is not unlimited. The amount of fees to be awarded is
2

within the Court’s discretion, and is limited by the statute to the usual and necessary fees to
“recover the unpaid wages.” Iowa Code §91A.8; Gabelmann v. NFO, Inc., 606 NW2d 339, 343
(Iowa 2000).
Taken to the reductio ad absurdum, Plaintiff’s argument would enable a party’s attorney
to add many meritless claims to one viable claim and dramatically increase the amount of the
recoverable fees. Awarding all fees in such a scenario is not required by Iowa law. In Lara v.
Thomas, 512 N.W. 2d 777(Iowa 1994), the Iowa Supreme Court upheld an award of only 25% of
the fees sought in the suit. The trial court there considered the total recovery sought on wage
related claims; the actual recovery on those claims; the relationship between the fee awarded and
the results obtained; the degree that other related claims contributed to success on these claims;
and the trial counsel’s experience. Id. at 787.
Gabelmann does not require a different result. Even though in Gabelmann, the Iowa
Supreme Court held that the lower court judge abused his discretion by awarding only a small
amount in fees (which he did because plaintiff did not succeed on most of his claim), the Court
made a point of noting that the portion of the claim that was ultimately found to be barred by the
statute of limitations was not meritless, having overcome two pretrial motions for summary
judgment. The same cannot be said of Plaintiff’s claim under the Representative Agreement,
which was dismissed upon Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to his attorneys’ fees and costs relating to his
Florida Whistleblower Act claim and that part of his breach of contract claim upon which he
prevailed, relating to the DuPage County 2013 project. The Court declines to award Plaintiff his
fees and costs relating to his unsuccessful claim under the Representative Agreement. That claim
3

did not contribute to the success of his contract claim relating to the DuPage County 2013
project, which arose not from the Representative Agreement, but from Plaintiff’s separate
Compensation Plan.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Motion For Entitlement to Attorneys’
Fees and Costs [DE 279] is GRANTED CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. The
assessment of the amount of the fees permitted by this Order, and the statutory and case law of
the two relevant jurisdictions, is hereby REFERRED to Magistrate Judge William Matthewman
for a REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County,
Florida this 18th day of June, 2018.
__________________________________
KENNETH A. MARRA
United States District Judge

4