MEEK v. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY
1:13-cv-00168
S.D. Ind.Oct 4, 2013Background
- Meek v. Otis Elevator Co., No. 1:13-cv-00168-TWP-TAB, SDInd. (filed in Indianapolis Division)
- Meek seeks unpaid salary, accrued vacation, and enhanced severance benefits through Nov. 29, 2013, with the termination date of Nov. 29, 2012
- Defendant offered judgment on June 27, 2013 for $7,055.84 covering the salary and vacation claims; enhanced severance excluded
- Meek agreed to the offer of judgment on June 28, 2013; fees for the enhanced severance claim remain unresolved
- Plaintiff initially sought $8,070 in attorney’s fees, then supplemental $3,285 to recover fees, totaling $11,355
- Magistrate Judge recommends granting fees but reducing them to $7,620; supplemental fees denied; hearing denied
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 7-1(g) bars the fee petition | Meek’s fees are post-judgment and not subject to conferment | Rule 7-1(g) requires conferral before filing | Rule 7-1(g) should not bar recovery of fees |
| Whether the fee request complies with the offer of judgment | Half of total pre-offer hours is reasonable | Fees after June 27, 2013 are precluded by the offer | Fees are limited to as of the June 27, 2013 date; supplemental post-offer fees denied |
| Whether a substantial settlement offer warrants further reduction | Settlement offers justify consideration of broader compensation | If offer is substantial, it supports reduction | No further reduction; pre-offer hours may still be recoverable as appropriate; supplemental denied for post-offer hours |
| Whether vague billing entries justify withholding fees | Billing deep into related claims is acceptable given common core | Billing entries lack claim-by-claim granularity | Billing entries adequate under Hensley; allowed as to a common core of relief |
| Whether the petition should be granted or reduced overall | Plaintiff should recover reasonable fees | Fees must be reduced to comply with offer of judgment | Grant of fees but reduced to $7,620 (half of 50.8 hours up to offer) |
Key Cases Cited
- Norby v. Anchor Hocking Packaging Co., 199 F.3d 390 (7th Cir. 1999) (post-offer fee recovery under unambiguous Rule 68 offers precluded)
- Moriarty v. Svec, 233 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (substantial settlement offer as a factor, not determinative)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ind. Ct. App., 932 N.E.2d 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (Indiana attorney’s fees framework for prevailing party)