Minor et al v. Twin Rivers Construction Inc.
ORDER granting 40 Motion for Attorney Fees. Plaintiffs Counsel is AWARDED $30,000.00 in attorneys fees and $1,000.00 in expenses. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on November 20, 2017. (jlk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
CHRISTOPHER MINOR, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-1002
Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth P. Deavers
TWIN RIVERS CONSTRUCTION INC.,
This matter is before the Court for consideration of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Unopposed
Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Costs. (ECF No. 40.) For the
reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Unopposed Motion is GRANTED.
This class and collective action is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §201, et seq., and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, O.R.C.
Chapter 4111. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs, who are laborers and laborer foremen, allege
that they were not paid for the time it took them to drive from the shop to their assigned jobsites.
(Id.) On August 14, 2017, upon the parties’ consent and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the
assigned District Judge referred to the Undersigned this matter for the purpose of deciding any
and all motions and/or hearings related to settlement proceedings. (ECF No. 30.)
On September 19, 2017, the Court preliminarily approved the parties’ settlement,
conditionally certified a settlement class, directed that notice be provided to the class members,
and scheduled a fairness hearing. (ECF No. 33.) A fairness hearing proceeded as scheduled on
November 6, 2017. (ECF Nos. 34, 37.) No objections to the proposed settlement were filed and
no members of the class appeared at the hearing.
Following the fairness hearing, Plaintiffs’ Counsel submitted a proposed Final Order and
Judgment Approving Class and Collective Action Settlement, which the Court has approved. In
accordance with the Court’s directive, Plaintiffs’ Counsel also filed their Unopposed Motion for
an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Costs, which was supported by detailed
billing records. (ECF Nos. 38, 39, 40.) “An award of attorneys’ fees and costs must be
reasonable, meaning an award adequate to attract competent counsel but one that does not
produce a windfall to attorneys.” Kritzer v. Safelite Sol., LLC, No. 2:10-cv-072, 2012 WL
1945144, at *9 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2012) (citing Reed v. Rhodes, 179 F.3d 453, 471 (6th Cir.
2008)). 1994). “The determination of a reasonable fee must be reached through an
evaluation of a myriad of factors, all within the knowledge of the trial court, examined in light of
the congressional policy underlying the substantive portions of the statute providing for the
award of fees.” United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofer, Damp and Waterproof Workers Ass’n,
Local 307 v. G & M Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., 732 F.2d 495, 501 (6th Cir. 1984); see also
Ramey v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., 508 F.2d 1188, 1196 (6th Cir. 1974) (identifying factors for
the trial court’s consideration when determining a reasonable fee). In evaluating whether the
amount of the award is reasonable, this Court has considered the following factors:
(1) the value of the benefit rendered for the class, (2) society’s stake in rewarding
attorneys who produce such benefits, (3) whether the services were undertaken on
a contingent fee basis, (4) the value of the services on an hourly basis, (5) the
complexity of the litigation, and (6) the professional skill and standing of the
Feiertag v. DDP Holdings, LLC, No. 14–CV–2643, 2016 WL 4721208, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9,
2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In this circuit, district courts apply a
“lodestar” calculation based on the “prevailing market rate in the relevant community” when
considering the reasonableness of the fee award. Smith v. Serv. Master Corp., 592 F. App’x 353,
369 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Adcock-Ladd v. Sec’y of Treasury, 227 F.3d 343, 350 (6th Cir.
2000)). The calculation considers “the number of hours reasonably spent on the case by an
attorney times a reasonable hourly rate.” Smith, 592 F. App’x at 369.
In this case, the Settlement Agreement provides for an attorneys’ fee award of
$30,000.00. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Unopposed Motion as well as the
supporting documentation and is satisfied that the requested fee award in this case is fair and
reasonable in light of, inter alia, the value of the services rendering considering the hourly rates
and hours reasonably and efficiently expended; the fact that Plaintiffs’ Counsel, who are
experienced in this type of class and collective action, undertook this matter on a contingent
basis; and the complexity of the litigation presented. Accordingly, as to the request for
attorneys’ fees, Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion (ECF No. 40) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’
Counsel is AWARDED $30,000.00 in attorneys’ fees.
Plaintiffs’ Counsel also seeks reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $1,000.00,
which represents out-of-pocket expenses incurred by class counsel. After reviewing the
Unopposed Motion as well as the supporting evidence (ECF No. 40-2 at PAGEID # 593), the
Court is satisfied that the requested amount is fair and reasonable. As it relates to the request for
reimbursement of expenses, Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Unopposed Motion (ECF No. 40) is therefore
GRANTED. Plaintiffs’ Counsel is AWARDED $1,000.00 in expenses.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 20, 2017
/s/ Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?