Kathy Radtke v. Maria Caschetta
422 U.S. App. D.C. 254
| D.C. Cir. | 2016Background
- In 2006 Radtke and Cunningham sued Advanta Medical Solutions and Lifecare Management Partners under the FLSA and Maryland law for unpaid overtime; after trial they recovered $5,844.29 on claims that sought over $87,000.
- Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees; appellants petitioned for $255,898.80 (reduced from claimed expenditures of ~ $325,000).
- The district court accepted the petition’s lodestar but reduced it by 75%, awarding $56,474.70, explaining the reduction was driven by plaintiffs’ alleged failure to provide a meaningful damages demand until the eve of trial, which purportedly caused delay and inflated fees.
- Both sides appealed: plaintiffs argued the fee reduction was improper; employers argued the fee petition was untimely or should be reduced further.
- The D.C. Circuit held the fee petition was not barred by timeliness (pre-judgment filing was cured by an amended post-Rule 59 judgment) but found the district court committed clear factual error in concluding plaintiffs had not provided damage calculations until the eve of trial.
- Because the court’s factual error was central to the fee reduction, the panel vacated the fee award and remanded for reassessment; prior district-court determinations are not law of the case on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of fee petition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) | Pre-judgment fee petition was timely because an amended judgment under Rule 59 created a new 14-day period and Rule 54 requires filing "no later than" 14 days after judgment | Petition was untimely because it was filed 15 days after initial judgment and plaintiffs did not refile within 14 days of amended judgment | Court held the amended judgment created a new filing period and a pre-judgment petition filed before the amended judgment satisfied the Rule’s "no later than" requirement; petition not denied for timeliness |
| Basis for downward adjustment of lodestar (limited success / delay) | Fee reduction was unsupported because plaintiffs repeatedly provided damages estimates early and sought settlement; district court erred in finding plaintiffs first provided damages on eve of trial | District court justified reduction because plaintiffs allegedly failed to provide a meaningful damages demand until the eve of trial, causing unnecessary delay and fee inflation | Court found the district court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous (record shows multiple early damages disclosures) and remanded to reassess fees because the error drove the reduction |
| Appropriate treatment of pre-suit and early disclosures under Rule 26 and fee analysis | Early Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures and settlement offers demonstrate plaintiffs informed defendants and attempted settlement, undermining penalty for delay | Employers argued early disclosures varied and did not predict the verdict, so they were not helpful | Court concluded existence of early disclosures was dispositive to the district court’s stated rationale; variance in estimates does not justify the factual finding of nondisclosure |
| Scope of remand and prior district-court determinations | Plaintiffs requested reassessment; seek preservation of certain findings | Employers sought deference or affirmance of reductions for other reasons | Court vacated whole fee decision and remanded; district-court findings no longer law of the case and parties may reargue issues on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct.) (lodestar is primary starting point for reasonable fee calculation)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (Sup. Ct.) (lodestar carries a strong presumption of reasonableness)
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (Sup. Ct.) (Advisory Committee notes merit weight in interpreting procedural rules)
- Mississippi Publ’g Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438 (Sup. Ct.) (weight given to Advisory Committee interpretations)
- Bailey v. Cnty. of Riverside, 414 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir.) (fee petition timely if filed within 14 days after resolution of post-judgment motions)
- Miltimore Sales, Inc. v. Int’l Rectifier, Inc., 412 F.3d 685 (6th Cir.) (same rule on timing after post-judgment motions)
- Quigley v. Rosenthal, 427 F.3d 1232 (10th Cir.) (same rule on timing)
- Members First Fed. Credit Union v. Members First Credit Union of Fl., 244 F.3d 806 (11th Cir.) (same rule on timing)
- Weyant v. Okst, 198 F.3d 311 (2d Cir.) (discussed in timing context though factual distinctions rendered it nonbinding here)
- Ass’n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 187 F.3d 655 (D.C. Cir.) (standard of review for fee awards: abuse of discretion and clear-error for factual findings)
- Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington, 475 U.S. 709 (Sup. Ct.) (appellate courts must not substitute factfinding for review of district-court factual findings)
- Radtke v. Lifecare Mgmt. Partners, 795 F.3d 159 (D.C. Cir.) (earlier merits opinion in this litigation)
- RSM Prod. Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP, 682 F.3d 1043 (D.C. Cir.) (appellate courts may affirm on alternative grounds)