Awuah v. COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC.
791 F. Supp. 2d 284
D. Mass.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are Coverall North America franchisees alleging misclassification as independent contractors under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B.
- The case began as a putative class action; class certification was denied without prejudice.
- The court held plaintiffs were misclassified employees under Massachusetts law.
- Awuah and DaSilva proceeded to arbitration; damages were awarded to each.
- This motion concerns attorney's fees and costs arising from the summary judgment briefing, arbitration-related work, and related proceedings.
- Arbitration addressed only misclassification and contract issues; other issues reserved for judicial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| entitlement to attorneys' fees under M.G.L. ch. 149, §150 | Awuah/DaSilva prevail and §150 mandates fees | Fees may be limited or not warranted under arbitration context | Yes; prevailing plaintiffs entitled to attorneys' fees under §150 |
| calculation of reasonable hours for fee award | Contemporaneous records adequate; hours spent on arbitration should be compensated | Lack of contemporaneous records requires reductions | Fees awarded for arbitration hours with reductions for block-billing and duplication |
| reasonable hourly rates for attorneys | Liss-Riordan $400, Schwab $300, Casavant $200 justified by expertise | Rates should reflect community norms and prior rulings | Hourly rates approved as in DiFiore: $400 (Liss-Riordan), $300 (Schwab), $200 (Casavant) |
| taxation of costs and scope of fee awards related to arbitration | Costs for arbitration should be awarded; fees for non-final issues premature | Costs limited or inappropriate if related to unresolved issues | Costs awarded; fees related to ongoing/arbitration issues limited to arbitration-related work |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (ultimate outcome qualifies as prevailing party when damages awarded)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Va. Dep't of Health & Hum. Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (prevailing party requires material alteration of the legal relationship)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method for calculating fees; reasonable hours and rates)
- Gay Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288 (1st Cir. 2001) (guidance on calculating attorneys' fees; prevailing rates in community)
- Raytheon Co. v. Automated Bus. Sys., Inc., 882 F.2d 6 (1st Cir. 1989) (arbitrators not required to provide findings for awards; finality rules context)
- Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin, 749 F.2d 945 (1st Cir. 1984) (contemporaneous time records preferred; flexibility in exceptional cases)
- Conservation Law Found., Inc. v. Patrick, 767 F.Supp.2d 244 (D. Mass. 2011) (fees during pendency are the exception, not the rule)