Anthony Vines v. Welspun Pipes Inc., 9 F.4th 849

Plaintiffs Anthony Vines and Dominique Lewis sued Welspun under the FLSA and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, alleging improper time-rounding and unpaid wages.
Parties negotiated settlements that included both wage distributions and attorneys’ fees; an initial joint motion was denied for lack of information to evaluate reasonableness.
A March 2020 joint proposal specified wage payments and $96,000 in fees, but the district court denied approval finding the wage and fee negotiations were not separately negotiated as required by Barbee.
In May 2020 the parties submitted a wage-only settlement (same wage amounts) which the district court approved and dismissed the claims; fees remained unresolved.
Plaintiffs moved for $96,000 (or lodestar); the district court awarded $1.00 in fees (alternatively stated it would award $25,000) based on perceived billing abuses and conduct.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that wage and fee negotiations were not separately negotiated, vacated the $1.00 fee award for lack of a lodestar analysis, and remanded; it denied reassignment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred under Barbee in denying the March 2020 settlement approval	March settlement was separately negotiated; May approval (same wage amounts) shows wages were separately negotiated	Wage and fee negotiations were intertwined; parties negotiated jointly and used “global” offers	Affirmed: district court did not clearly err in finding the wage claim and attorneys’ fees were not separately negotiated
Whether the district court abused its discretion by awarding $1.00 (or $25,000) in attorneys’ fees	Requested $96,000 (previously negotiated) or lodestar-based fee; $96,000 was reasonable	District court justified reduction due to billing practices, counsel conduct, and failure to justify hours	Vacated: fee award lacked a lodestar calculation (hours × rate); remanded for proper lodestar and any reductions for misconduct
Whether the case should be reassigned for bias/recusal	Plaintiffs argue prior rulings show judge bias and ask reassignment	District court impartial; plaintiffs did not seek recusal below	Denied: reviewed for plain error and found no basis to reassign; judge presumed impartial

Barbee v. Big River Steel, LLC, 927 F.3d 1024 (8th Cir. 2019) (courts may ensure attorneys’ fees were negotiated separately from FLSA claims)
Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., 796 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2015) (discussion of judicial approval of FLSA settlements)
Childress v. Fox Assocs., LLC, 932 F.3d 1165 (8th Cir. 2019) (lodestar method and reconstruction of hours)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar and reduction for degree of success)
Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (importance of lodestar for meaningful review)
Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (limited circumstances where lodestar may be skipped based on degree of success)
Wescott Agri-Products, Inc. v. Sterling State Bank, Inc., 682 F.3d 1091 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court may consider unprofessional conduct when awarding fees)
Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L., 560 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 2009) (upholding minimal or no fee awards for attorney misconduct)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings generally do not alone establish bias)
Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (1989) (lodestar approach as centerpiece of fee awards)