Tricia Melland v. Cornerstone Dental, Pc
691 F. App'x 354
9th Cir.2017Background
- Tricia Melland sued Cornerstone Dental (Design Dental) and Daniel Lundquist raising multiple claims, including an overtime claim under the Washington Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
- Melland prevailed on the overtime claim by accepting an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68; other claims proceeded to a four-day jury trial and were unsuccessful.
- Melland moved in district court for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party for the overtime/FLSA claim.
- The district court denied the fee motion because Melland failed to properly segregate time between the successful overtime claim and the unrelated, unsuccessful claims.
- Melland appealed the denial and also sought fees for work on the appeal.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees due to inadequate segregation and unsupported apportionment (a 50% reduction) of attorney time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Melland was entitled to attorneys’ fees as the prevailing party | Melland argued she was the prevailing party for the overtime claim and sought fees for work on that claim and related tasks | Defendants accepted she was a prevailing party but opposed fees for time attributable to unsuccessful claims | Court: Melland was a prevailing party but must segregate fees; failure to do so justified denying the fee award |
| Whether time spent on general tasks could be apportioned by a 50% reduction to cover the successful claim | Melland used a 50% across-the-board reduction for general/unspecified tasks to allocate fees to the overtime claim | Defendants contended the 50% split was arbitrary and unsupported | Court: The 50% methodology lacked any ascertainable principle or documentation and was unreasonable |
| Whether the unsuccessful claims were related to the successful overtime claim such that fees could include time on those claims | Melland implied overlap justified including some general time in the fee request | Defendants argued the unsuccessful claims were unrelated and consumed most trial time (four-day jury trial) | Court: Unsuccessful claims were unrelated; fee award may not include time spent on them; plaintiff bears burden to segregate |
| Whether Melland was entitled to appellate fees for this appeal | Melland requested fees for appellate work since she prevailed on appeal of the fee denial? | Defendants opposed appellate fees because district court did not err | Court: Because district court did not abuse its discretion in denying fees, Melland is not entitled to appellate fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Haworth v. Nevada, 56 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 1995) (standard of review for attorney-fee awards)
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346 (U.S. 1981) (plaintiff who accepts Rule 68 offer of judgment is a prevailing party)
- Schwarz v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 73 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 1995) (fee awards must exclude time on unrelated unsuccessful claims)
- McCown v. City of Fontana, 565 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2009) (plaintiff bears burden to segregate fees between successful and unsuccessful claims)
- Loeffelholz v. Citizens for Leaders, 82 P.3d 1199 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (failure properly to segregate attorney fees can justify denying fees)
- Bloor v. Fritz, 180 P.3d 805 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (discussing allocation of attorney fees between claims)