Dionne v. Floormasters Enterprises, Inc.
667 F.3d 1199
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Dionne, a Floormasters warehouse clerk, worked Sept 19–Nov 27, 2007; Floormasters denied overtime liability but tendered full back pay.
- Dionne filed a §216(b) overtime suit on Mar 24, 2008 on his and others’ behalf.
- Floormasters tendered full payment of overtime and related amounts and moved to dismiss with prejudice.
- The district court denied the tender as moot and found discovery necessary.
- Dionne later conceded the overtime claim was moot but sought attorney’s fees under §216(b); the district court denied.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit must decide whether a mooting tender yields prevailing-party status entitling fees under §216(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tendering full back pay makes Dionne the prevailing party. | Dionne argues the tendered payment and mootness render him prevailing. | Floormasters contends no judgment in Dionne’s favor was entered. | No prevailing-party status; no judgment entered. |
| Whether Buckhannon bars fee recovery when a defendant dismisses as moot after tendering full pay. | Buckhannon allows fees where relief is obtained; catalyst theory applies. | Buckhannon rejects catalyst theory; no judicial relief obtained. | Buckhannon forecloses catalyst-based fee recovery; mootness alone not enough. |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice changed the legal relationship to justify fees. | Dionne relies on settlement-like effect of dismissal. | Dismissal with prejudice lacked judicial imprimatur of a settlement/consent decree. | Dismissal with prejudice did not create prevailing-party status. |
| Whether summary denial of fees is an abuse of discretion. | Plaintiff seeks fees under §216(b) as prevailing party. | No prevailing party; no judgment; proper to deny. | No abuse; district court’s denial affirmed. |
| What is the narrow scope of the decision on §216(b) in this case? | Question limited to whether mootness after full payment yields fees. | Broader fee entitlement not supported. | Decision limited to non-prevailing-party outcome under these facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (catalyst theory rejected; no prevailing party without judicial relief)
- Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982) (settlement approval required for fee shift; not applicable here)
- Barrios v. California Interscholastic Federation, 277 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2002) (settlement terms and enforceability affect prevailing-party status)
- Goss v. Killian Oaks House of Learning, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1162 (S.D. Fla. 2003) (settlement approval not present; not controlling here)
- Truesdell v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 290 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2002) (settlement terms incorporated into dismissal; prevailing-party status)
- Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. Department of Energy, 288 F.3d 452 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (courts’ approval of partial compliance not meaningfully altering legal relationship)
- Smyth ex. rel. Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.3d 268 (4th Cir. 2002) (fee award reversed when no retained jurisdiction or integrated settlement)
- American Disability Ass’n v. Chmielarz, 289 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2002) (approval/retention of jurisdiction matters for settlement outcomes)