Dylan Stewart v. San Luis Ambulance, Inc.
699 F. App'x 700
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- San Luis Ambulance, Inc. (SLA) appealed an attorney-fee award to Dylan Stewart after judgment for Stewart on his first and second claims (state and federal unpaid-wage claims).
- The district court awarded fees but did not offset amounts paid to the Baltodano and Boren firms for work as interim class counsel in a related Javine settlement.
- The district court also included all attorney fees (including for claims on which Stewart did not prevail) in its Rule 68 offer-comparison analysis.
- The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded, finding error both in failing to determine the appropriate offset for fees already paid to interim class counsel and in including fees for unsuccessful claims in the Rule 68 comparison.
- On remand Stewart must (1) produce the actual amount paid from the Javine settlement to the Baltodano and Boren firms and (2) prove those amounts were insufficient compensation for their work. The district court must recalculate reasonable fees attributable only to Stewart’s successful claims as of the dates of the two offers of judgment, add $750 in FLSA liability, and compare those totals to the offers.
- The court rejected SLA’s collateral-estoppel argument (different plaintiff in the earlier settlement) and found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s treatment of PAGA-related fees; because the court remanded on other grounds it did not resolve SLA’s challenge to the overall award amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court must offset fees already paid to interim class counsel from the fee award | Stewart: no offset or not the full amount; district court’s award stands | SLA: must offset amounts paid to Baltodano and Boren from any fee award | Court: Error to fail to determine offset; on remand Stewart must produce settlement payments and prove insufficiency before receiving additional fees (Corder v. Brown applies) |
| Whether Rule 68 comparison may include attorney fees for claims on which Stewart did not prevail | Stewart: include all incurred fees in the pre-offer fee calculation | SLA: limit fees to those for successful claims when comparing to Rule 68 offers | Court: Error to include fees for unsuccessful claims; must calculate fees only for success on claims 1 and 2 as of each offer date, add $750 FLSA liability, then compare to offers (post-offer costs may be awarded if judgment not more favorable) |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars relitigation based on earlier Javine settlement | Stewart: earlier settlement irrelevant to Stewart’s fee award | SLA: earlier settlement and payments preclude relitigation or require offset | Court: Rejects collateral estoppel—different plaintiff (Javine) and no identity of interest; estoppel does not apply |
| Whether district court abused discretion in treating PAGA-related fees | Stewart: district court’s treatment proper | SLA: district court abused discretion regarding PAGA fees | Court: No abuse of discretion found; court does not reach SLA’s challenge to the overall award amount due to remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Corder v. Brown, 25 F.3d 833 (9th Cir. 1994) (addressing offsets for fees paid to class counsel when awarding attorneys' fees)
- Champion Produce, Inc. v. Ruby Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rule 68 fee-comparison principles)
- Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1985) (post-offer costs rule under Rule 68)
- Haworth v. Nevada, 56 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 1995) (FLSA fee considerations when final judgment is less favorable than an earlier offer)
- Town of North Bonneville v. Callaway, 10 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1993) (collateral estoppel identity-of-interest discussion)