116 N.E.3d 1196
Mass.2019Background
- Plaintiffs (former employees) sued employers under the Massachusetts Wage Act seeking unpaid regular and overtime wages, treble damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.
- After nearly two years of litigation, the parties mediated and executed a settlement for $20,500; the settlement reserved the fee issue for the court and the case was dismissed by stipulation.
- Plaintiffs moved for attorneys' fees (~$40,000 claimed) and costs; the judge awarded $16,153 in fees and full costs, applying the "catalyst" test.
- Defendants appealed, arguing Buckhannon requires judicial approval of a settlement before a claimant can be a "prevailing party" for fee-shifting statutes.
- The SJC granted direct appellate review to resolve which test governs Wage Act fee awards and whether the plaintiffs prevailed under that test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper test to determine "prevailing party" under the Wage Act | The catalyst test applies; settlement without judicial imprimatur can confer prevailing-party status if lawsuit was a necessary and important factor | Buckhannon requires a material alteration of legal relationship plus judicial imprimatur before fee entitlement | The catalyst test applies to the Wage Act; Buckhannon does not govern Massachusetts fee statutes |
| Whether the plaintiffs prevailed here (settlement for ~70% of demand) | Plaintiffs satisfied catalyst test because suit was the necessary and important factor causing defendants to pay a material portion | Conceded by defendants for catalyst test (they argued Buckhannon instead) | Plaintiffs prevailed: settlement satisfied the catalyst test and was a material portion of relief |
| Entitlement to appellate fees and procedure | Plaintiffs requested appellate fees in briefing; seek leave to file fee request here | Defendants did not contest procedural point on appeal | Plaintiffs may file a request for appellate attorneys' fees and costs in this court per Fabre procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (holding federal fee statutes require a judicially sanctioned change in legal relationship to establish prevailing party)
- Brown v. F.L. Roberts & Co., 452 Mass. 674 (Mass. 2008) (Massachusetts courts rejected Buckhannon's application to state fee-shifting statutes)
- Handy v. Penal Insts. Comm'r of Boston, 412 Mass. 759 (Mass. 1992) (adopted catalyst test: lawsuit that is a necessary and important factor can make plaintiff prevailing party)
- Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275 (1st Cir. 1978) (First Circuit articulation of the catalyst test)
- Draper v. Town Clerk of Greenfield, 384 Mass. 444 (Mass. 1981) (settlement can make plaintiffs prevailing parties under catalyst framework)