Ojeda-Sanchez et al v. Bland Farms, LLC et al

Filing 390

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 371 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge B. Avant Edenfield on 10/16/2013. (loh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
DAVID OJEDA-SANCHEZ, et al., and
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
6:08-cv-96

V.

BLAND FARMS, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs in this class-action lawsuit
move the Court for attorney's fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). ECF No. 371. The Plaintiffs
have provided the Court with a proposed
lodestar calculation based upon hours
worked and comparable legal billing rates.
EFC Nos. 375; 375-1. Defendants
("Bland") argue that the proposed attorney's
fees are unreasonable in light of the limited
recovery by the plaintiffs measured against
the original damages demand. ECF No.
379. This Court agrees that Plaintiffs are
entitled to attorney's fees, but the lodestar
calculation must be reduced because of the
Plaintiffs' limited results in the suit. The
Court GRANTS IN FART attorney's fees to
Plaintiffs in the amount of $90,288.
This protracted dispute is rather
complicated, and the Court has already
occupied much paper with the relevant facts.
See ECF No. 331 at 1-6; see also ECF No.
360 at 4-5 (abbreviated facts from United
States Court of Appeals opinion). This

order examines the procedural background
of the case as is necessary to properly
calculate the fee award. The Court then
evaluates the lodestar as proposed by
Plaintiffs and discusses its reasoning for
reduction, taking into consideration Bland's
arguments.

c
F
II. PROCEDURAL BA(kGROUM)"

Cn

After years of disc&aweijJ
to bench trial in February,ZO
E(F-No. 365. The Plaintiffs appál4e C-curt's
ruling and the Court of Appels eaded -?
the case for the purpose of i lci\lation of
damages. See ECF No. 36k. at 17. The
Court ultimately awardt Plaintiffs
$18,923.53. ECF No. 372. Of this amount,
$2,543.16 is FLSA recovery. ECF No. 383
at 3. Plaintiffs initially claimed $110,352.44
in FLSA damages. ECF No. 379 at 2 n.1.
III. ANALYSIS
The Eleventh Circuit prescribes the
lodestar method for calculating attorney's
fees for prevailing plaintiffs. Norman v.
Hous. Auth. of the City of Montgomery, 836
F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 1988). The
lodestar "is calculated by multiplying the
number of hours reasonably expended in a
litigation by a reasonable hourly rate."
James v. Wash Depot Holdings, Inc., 489 F.
Supp. 2d 1341, 1346 (S.D. Fla. 2007). A
court may then adjust this lodestar
calculation upward or downward depending
on the "results obtained" by the attorney.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434
(1983).
The Court first evaluates Plaintiffs'
lodestar calculation and then provides for a
downward adjustment of the calculation in
light of the limited results obtained, as well

as the imprecision of Plaintiffs' attorney,
Dawson Morton's, block billing records.

objection goes to the specificity of billing
records. Id. at 1348. This form of general
objection is difficult to itemize and deduct,
so a court may merge valid general
objections with consideration of reduction of
the lodestar. Id.

A. Calculation of the Lodestar
Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing
reasonable billable hours and a reasonable
hourly rate. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437. That
said, "[t]he determination of reasonableness
lies in the sound discretion of the trial
court." James, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 1346.
Plaintiffs ask for $225,720 in fees based
upon 820.8 hours of work at an hourly rate
of $275. ECF No. 375 at 5, 10.

Here, the Court appreciates Mr.
Morton's deduction of hours for nonqualifying time. The Court also recognizes
that separating out time for work on FLSA
claims and work on non-FLSA claims may
be impractical. For example, in a trial, it
may be impossible to say what percentage of
a half-hour opening argument is allocated to
FLSA claims. Even so, the Court finds
merit in Bland's argument.

1. Number of Hours Expended
Mr. Morton provides the Court with
line-item records for his work in this case.
ECF No. 375-1 at 6-75. Mr. Morton's gross
time expended on this case totals 1601.5
hours. Id. at 75. Mr. Morton has eliminated
time related to clerical tasks, certain
motions, and the appeal to request a lodestar
based upon a net calculation of 820.8 hours.
Id.; ECF No. 375 at 6.

This case had multiple issues, some
FLSA and some non-FLSA. See ECF No.
331 at 17. Inevitably, using Mr. Morton's
block recording method, some billable time
would be devoted to non-FLSA claims.
Again, because this form of general
objection is difficult to itemize and deduct,
the Court will merge its consideration with
that of the limited results of the plaintiff in a
downward lodestar calculation later in this
order.

Bland objects to Mr. Morton's block
entries because they do not separate out time
for work on FLSA claims and non-FLSA
claims. Id. at 8.

2. Hourly Rate

Courts recognize two forms of
objections to hourly billing calculations.
See James, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 1348-49
(classifying objections of defendant as
specific and generalized). A specific
objection attacks a line item as unrelated or
unnecessary to an FLSA claim. See id. at
1348 (noting objections to billing entries
because the attorney was working on nonFLSA unemployment claims and the
redundancy of the presence of a second
plaintiff's attorney at trial). A general

Mr. Morton presents an hourly rate of
$275 for his work. ECF No. 375 at 5.
Bland does not directly dispute this rate, but
rather attacks the overall award of attorney's
fees as unreasonable. ECF No. 379 at 9.
"A reasonable hourly rate is the
prevailing market rate in the relevant legal
community for similar services by lawyers
of reasonably comparable skills, experience,
and reputation." Norman, 836 F.2d at 1299.
"Evidence of rates may be adduced through
2

4

direct evidence of charges by lawyers under
similar circumstances or by opinion
evidence." Id.

Bland presents two valid arguments.
First, as discussed above, it objects to the
recordkeeping precision of Mr. Morton's
billable hours. ECF No. 379 at 8. Under the
FLSA, "the burden is on the fee applicant to
maintain billing records 'in a manner that
will enable a reviewing court to identify
distinct claims." James, 489 F. Supp. 2d at
1352 (quoting Hensely, 461 U.S. at 437).
Mr. Morton has failed to meet this burden.
This failure justifies a downward
adjustment.

Plaintiffs provide the Court with both
types of evidence in this case. The Court
finds the affidavit of Mr. Wade W. Herring,
II alone to be sufficient evidence of
reasonableness for Mr. Morton's work. ECF
No. 375-5. Mr. Herring is an experienced
Savannah employment law attorney. Id. at
2. He previously served as a judicial clerk
of this Court, Judge Dudley H. Bowen, Jr.
Id
Mr. Herring's practice generally
involves the defense of employment claims,
including FLSA and other wage-hour
claims. Id at 3. It is his opinion that a fee
of $275 per hour for Mr. Morton's work is
reasonable. Id. at 4-5. The Court holds that
Plaintiffs have met their burden to prove that
$275 is a reasonable hourly rate.

Next, Bland argues that Plaintiffs only
obtained fractional success. Id. at 2, 2 n. 1.
Indeed, Plaintiffs claimed $110,352.44 in
FLSA damages and only recovered
$2543.16, about 2.3% of that sought.
The Court merges the concerns to
determine the proper lodestar reduction. See
James, 489 F. Supp. 2d at 1351-52 (merging
similar concerns to calculate a lodestar
reduction). The Court holds that the
circumstances warrant a 60% reduction in
the lodestar calculation. The Court bases its
opinion on both precedent and numerical
reasoning.

The Court calculates the initial lodestar
to be $225,720: 820.8 hours at a rate of $275
per hour. The Court now considers a
downward adjustment of the lodestar.
B. Adjustments for the Results
Obtained

In James, the court reduced a lodestar by
50% under similar circumstances. Id. at
1353. The plaintiff there only recovered
$3,493.62 in damages of the over $600,000
that he initially sought, or about 0.5%. Id
The defendant also raised a similar
challenge to the precision of the plaintiffs
attorney's billing records. Id. at 1349, 135152.

The United States Supreme Court has
recognized a district court's discretion to
adjust the lodestar calculation up or down.
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434. "There is no
precise rule or formula for making these
determinations. The district court may
attempt to identify specific hours that should
be eliminated, or it may simply reduce the
award to account for the limited success.
The court necessarily has discretion in
making this equitable judgment." Id. at 43637.

In Popham v. City of Kennesaw, 820
F.2d 1570, 1578, 1580 (11th Cir. 1987), the
Court of Appeals upheld a 67% reduction of
lodestar calculation when the plaintiff only
3

-

a

received $30,000 in damages of the
$2,000,000 initially sought, or 1.5%.
The Court considered a greater reduction
of the lodestar in the case at hand in light of
the 2.3% recovery of FLSA damages sought.
However, the Court recognized some nonmonetary success from this case. For
example, the lawsuit effected a change in
Bland's accounting practices, resulting in an
increase in pay for current Bland workers.
ECF No. 375 at 10. The Court considered
this value in choosing to only reduce the
lodestar by 60%.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS IN PART
Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees and
ORDERS the Clerk to enter judgment in
favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $90,288.
The Clerk is ORDERED to terminate
ECF Nos. 371 and 375.

/
This

f October 2013.

iT //,IV

~(~ ~
-

246

B. AVANT EISEWIELD, JUDGE //
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU1(T
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

4