G&K Services Co., Inc. v. Bill's Super Foods, Inc.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17203
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- G&K Services (Minnesota) sued Bill’s Super Foods (Arkansas) for liquidated damages under a exclusive textile contract; Bill’s counterclaimed for contract breach, fraud, suppression, deceit, and Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
- District court based jurisdiction on diversity; 2009 summary judgment granted to G&K on breach, trial needed for liquidated damages; partial summary judgment on counterclaims.
- May 2013 trial: jury awarded G&K $50,837.92 for liquidated damages; jury favored G&K on most counterclaims but awarded Bill’s $25,418.96 on the DTPA counterclaim.
- Post-trial, district court awarded G&K $82,766.50 in attorney’s fees (under Ark. Code § 16-22-308) and denied Bill’s fees; Bill’s appealed.
- Court affirmed in part and remanded for consideration of fees under Ark. Code § 4-88-113(f); no automatic fees under DTPA; addressed apportionment and prevailing party issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney’s fees—abuse of discretion? | G&K argues district court properly reduced by time on unsuccessful claims. | Bill’s argues fees excessive and misapplied factors. | No abuse; fee award affirmed as reasonable. |
| Reasonableness of rates? | Rates from Little Rock attorneys were reasonable for the market. | Rates should be reduced to local Jonesboro market. | No abuse; implicit finding supported by district court’s familiarity. |
| Consideration of Chrisco factors? | District court addressed several factors (time, results, difficulty). | District court failed to expressly discuss all eight Chrisco factors. | Not reversible; substantial explanation adequate. |
| DTPA fee recovery—mandatory or discretionary? | § 4-88-113(f) provides a fee remedy, not mandatory; prevailing party rule separate. | Prevailing party rule bars Bill’s from fee recovery since G&K prevailed overall. | Fees under § 4-88-113(f) discretionary and Bill’s may recover; remand for trial court to determine. |
| Prevailing party rule interaction with DTPA? | DTPA fees can be awarded to recover damages even if not overall prevailing party. | Only one prevailing party allowed under § 16-22-308. | Arkansas law allows DTPA fee awards independent of overall prevailing party status. |
Key Cases Cited
- FMC Corp. v. Helton, 202 S.W.3d 490 (Ark. 2005) (trial court discretion in awarding attorney’s fees under DTPA)
- Jim Ray, Inc. v. Williams, 260 S.W.3d 307 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (fees under DTPA discretionary, not mandatory)
- Warnock v. Archer, 380 F.3d 1076 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court can determine reasonable market rates with deference)
- Emery v. Hunt, 272 F.3d 1042 (8th Cir. 2001) (local market evidence for fee rates admissible)