Almanza v. United States
13-130
Fed. Cl.Jan 11, 2018Background
- 290 CBP officers sued the United States seeking overtime pay for pre-shift study time related to a Detection Canine Instructor Course, asserting COPRA and alternatively the FLSA.
- Parties mediated and entered a settlement for $1,716,000 resolving CBPO claims, reserving Plaintiffs’ right to seek attorneys’ fees and the Government’s right to object.
- Plaintiffs moved for $3,011,788.82 in fees, expenses, and costs under the FLSA, Back Pay Act/COPRA; the Government opposed, arguing Plaintiffs were not "prevailing parties," that a judicial judgment was required for FLSA fees, and that requested forum rates were excessive.
- The Court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable and invited supplemental briefing on whether approval changed the prevailing-party / judgment questions and on fee issues.
- The Court found Plaintiffs were prevailing parties for FLSA purposes because the Court’s approval and the judgment approving the settlement provided the necessary judicial imprimatur under Buckhannon.
- Applying the lodestar method and the Avera/Davis County forum-rate framework, the Court reduced requested forum (D.C.) rates to reasonable local Texas rates and awarded $1,498,703 in attorneys’ fees plus $22,540.36 in expenses and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiffs' Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs are "prevailing parties" entitled to fees under the FLSA/Back Pay Act | Settlement approval and resulting relief qualifies Plaintiffs as prevailing parties | Settlement is voluntary conduct; Buckhannon requires judicially-sanctioned change or a judgment on merits, so no prevailing-party status | Court: Court approval of FLSA settlement and entry of judgment provide judicial imprimatur; Plaintiffs are prevailing parties for FLSA fees |
| Whether a formal merits judgment is required before awarding FLSA fees | §216(b) allows fees in addition to any judgment; settlement approval suffices | §216(b) requires an awarded "judgment" before fees — so settlement without merits judgment precludes fees | Court: §216(b) does not require a merits adjudication; approval/entry of judgment approving settlement is sufficient for fees |
| Appropriate hourly rates (forum Laffey/Kavanaugh rates v. local Texas rates under Avera/Davis County) | Use Washington, D.C. Kavanaugh/Laffey rates (up to $950) as forum rates | Bulk of work done in Texas; Avera exception applies — use local (San Antonio/El Paso) rates | Court: Avera exception applies; adopted local Texas rates: $450/hr for Kern/Greenwald, $380/hr for Gaudet, $115/hr for paralegals |
| Whether lodestar should be adjusted upward (Johnson factors/contingency, complexity, results) | Seek upward adjustment based on contingency, complexity, excellent results | Lodestar presumptively reasonable; adjustments rare and must be justified | Court: No upward adjustment; lodestar presumption stands and factors are subsumed in lodestar |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (judicial imprimatur required for prevailing-party fee awards)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar is guiding standard; adjustments limited)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (fees assessed by reasonable hourly rate and hours; market rates control)
- Avera v. Sec’y of HHS, 515 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (forum-rate rule with limited Davis County exception where bulk of work outside forum and substantial rate disparity)
- Dague v. Township of Burlington, 505 U.S. 557 (1992) (strong presumption in favor of lodestar; enhancement for contingency disallowed)
- Bywaters v. United States, 670 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (applies lodestar guidance; uses forum rule analysis)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (when claims share a common core, fee awards should focus on overall relief and reasonable hours)