986 F.3d 613
6th Cir.2021Background
- Rembert, a nurse, sued A Plus under the FLSA for unpaid overtime after learning she routinely worked over 40 hours without overtime pay.
- The district court conditionally certified an opt-in class and ordered A Plus to produce a class list; defense counsel repeatedly missed deadlines, failed to appear at a conference, and produced information late.
- Discovery was marked by persistent failures of defense counsel to comply with discovery obligations, prompting a motion to compel and a magistrate order awarding fees and costs related to that motion.
- The parties ultimately entered judgment for the plaintiff class for $18,961 plus reasonable fees and costs; Rembert moved for $38,190 in attorney fees and $575 in costs (119.9 hours).
- The district court approved hourly rates but reduced compensable hours from 119.9 to 46.2 and further discounted the award to cap fees at 35% of the total settlement, awarding $13,790.
- The Sixth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by imposing a percentage cap and by failing to adequately justify the large reductions in hours; it reversed and remanded with instructions to award $38,765 and to permit reasonable appellate fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court may cap FLSA attorney fees at a fixed percentage of the recovery | Rembert: a percentage cap conflicts with lodestar approach and undermines FLSA fee-shifting purpose | A Plus: local practice supports capping fees as percentage of settlement | Court: percentage cap is an abuse of discretion; lodestar governs and percentage limits frustrate FLSA objectives |
| Whether the district court adequately justified reducing claimed hours from 119.9 to 46.2 and excluding entries as non-attorney, duplicative, or clerical | Rembert: entries were reasonable, necessary, and documented; defense misconduct prolonged litigation | A Plus: many entries were excessive, clerical, or duplicative and should be excluded or reduced | Court: reduction lacked particularized explanation; exclusions (client communications, co-counsel work, factual development) improperly disallowed; abuse of discretion |
| Entitlement to appellate fees for pursuing fee award on appeal | Rembert: prevailing party on fee issue entitled to reasonable appellate fees under precedents | A Plus: (implicit) oppose further fee shifting | Court: Rembert entitled to reasonable fees and costs for the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (Sup. Ct. 2010) (lodestar presumptively captures reasonable fee factors)
- Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2004) (fee must attract competent counsel and avoid windfalls)
- Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co., 726 F.3d 802 (6th Cir. 2013) (lodestar calculation components)
- Gonter v. Hunt Valve Co., 510 F.3d 610 (6th Cir. 2007) (district court must provide clear, concise explanation for fee award adjustments)
- U.S. Structures, Inc. v. J.P. Structures, Inc., 130 F.3d 1185 (6th Cir. 1997) (court should state with particularity which hours are accepted or rejected)
- Fisher v. SD Protection Inc., 948 F.3d 593 (2d Cir. 2020) (rejected imposing percentage cap on FLSA fee awards)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (partial success may justify reduced fee)
- Fox v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (courts should seek rough justice in fee adjustments)
- Ne. Ohio Coal. for the Homeless v. Husted, 831 F.3d 686 (6th Cir. 2016) (co-counsel coordination can be compensable)
- Moore v. Freeman, 355 F.3d 558 (6th Cir. 2004) (standard of review for fee awards)