Gortat v. Capala Bros.
795 F.3d 292
2d Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (former employees) sued Capala Brothers and its principals under the FLSA and NYLL for unpaid wages and overtime; case litigated ~7 years and tried in 2013.
- Jury found Defendants liable and awarded damages; district court later awarded Plaintiffs' counsel $514,284 in attorneys’ fees and $68,294.50 in costs.
- Plaintiffs sought costs that included $11,475 for an accounting expert; $1,050 related to defendants’ counterclaims and $10,425 to Plaintiffs’ affirmative claims.
- Magistrate Judge recommended awarding most routine costs and $10,425 for the expert fees (citing some FLSA precedents); district court adopted the recommendation.
- Defendants appealed, arguing among other things that FLSA § 216(b) does not authorize reimbursement of plaintiffs’ expert fees.
- The appellate court reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and fee amounts for abuse of discretion, and focused here on whether § 216(b) permits expert-fee reimbursement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) authorizes awarding prevailing plaintiffs reimbursement for expert fees beyond § 1920/§ 1821 witness allowances | § 216(b) allows courts to award "costs of the action," which includes reasonable expert fees (relying on some prior FLSA decisions) | § 216(b) does not explicitly authorize expert fees; "costs" is a term of art that generally excludes expert fees and so courts may only tax costs authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821 absent explicit statutory language | Reversed: § 216(b) does not explicitly authorize expert-fee reimbursement; district court erred in awarding $10,425 under the FLSA |
| Whether expert fees may be awarded under state law (NYLL) and should be awarded in this case | (Plaintiffs) If NYLL authorizes expert fees, the district court may award them | (Defendants) NYLL does not authorize such fees, or award is unwarranted here | Remanded to district court to determine whether NYLL authorizes expert-fee recovery and, if so, whether to award them |
Key Cases Cited
- Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006) ("costs" as term of art generally does not include expert fees; explicit statutory authorization required)
- W. Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83 (1991) (§ 1920/§ 1821 define full extent of federal courts' power to shift litigation costs absent express statutory authority)
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987) (absent explicit statutory authorization, courts are bound by § 1821 and § 1920 limits on witness-related costs)
- Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. LY USA, Inc., 676 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2012) (standard of review: fee-amount determinations for abuse of discretion; statutory-interpretation questions de novo)