Cole v. Robert D. Wilcox, MD PA
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Susan Cole's Amended Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs (Dkt. # 16 ) is hereby GRANTED. As such, Plaintiff is awarded $7,101 in attorneys' fees and $512.50 in costs. Signed by District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 4/24/2018. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SUSAN COLE
v.
ROBERT D. WILCOX, MD PA d/b/a
PLASTICS & COSMETIC SURGERY
CENTER OF TEXAS and ROBERT D.
WICOX, INDIVIDUALLY
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-00367
Judge Mazzant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Susan Cole’s Amended Application for Attorney’s
Fees and Costs (Dkt. #16). After reviewing the relevant pleadings and motion, the Court finds the
motion should be granted.
BACKGROUND
On May 31, 2017, Plaintiff sued Defendants Robert D. Wilcox, MD PA d/b/a Plastics and
Cosmetic Surgery Center of Texas and Robert D. Wilcox individually (collectively, “Defendants”)
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) for unpaid overtime pay. On February 1, 2018,
Defendants served an Offer of Judgment, which included an amount for unpaid overtime wages
and liquidated damages. Additionally, Defendants offered to pay for costs and attorney’s fees, an
amount to be determined by the Court. As such, on March 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Amended
Application for Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Dkt. #16). On March 21, 2018, Defendants filed their
response (Dkt. #17).
LEGAL STANDARD
In determining whether an award for attorney's fees is warranted in a lawsuit under the
FLSA, the Court engages in a three step process. First, the Court determines whether the party is
entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs. See Saizan v. Delta Concrete Products Co., Inc., 448
F.3d 795, 799 (5th Cir.2006). The attorney's fee provision of the FLSA states that a Court “shall,
in addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney's fee
to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Although the provision
does not specifically mention a “prevailing party,” courts have construed the provision as requiring
the party being awarded attorney's fees to be the prevailing party. Saizan, 448 F.3d at 799 n.7.
Second, after determining whether a party is entitled to attorney's fees, the Court
determines the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded. See id. at 799. To determine the amount,
the Court calculates the “lodestar” by multiplying the number of hours reasonably spent on the
case by a reasonably hourly rate. Rutherford v. Harris County, 197 F.3d 173, 192 (5th Cir.1999).
Third, after determining the “lodestar,” the Court may adjust that number upward or
downward based on a consideration of the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. Georgia Highway
Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.1974). The twelve Johnson factors are: (1) the time a labor
required to represent the client; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the issues in the case; (3) the skill
required to perform the legal services properly; (4) the preclusion of other employment by the
attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or
contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount
involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10)
the “undesirability” of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the
client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Id. at 117–19. But the lodestar may not be adjusted
because of a Johnson factor that is already subsumed in the lodestar. Migis v. Pearle Vision, 135
F.3d 1041, 1047 (5th Cir.1998).
2
Regarding costs of the action, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) makes clear that costs
are to be awarded to the prevailing party as a matter of course, unless the court directs otherwise.
See Energy Mgmt. Corp. v. City of Shreveport, 467 F.3d 471, 483 (5th Cir.2006).
ANALYSIS
In Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff seeks $7,101 in attorneys’ fees and $512.50 in costs and
expenses. In their response, Defendants advise the Court that they do not oppose Plaintiff’s
motion. After reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s request is reasonable
and should be granted.
.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Susan Cole’s Amended Application for Attorney’s
Fees and Costs (Dkt. #16) is hereby GRANTED. As such, Plaintiff is awarded $7,101 in
attorneys’ fees and $512.50 in costs.
SIGNED this 24th day of April, 2018.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?