Smith v. Batchelor

SMITH, Jr., Stephen R. Plaintiff Appellant, BATCHELOR,

Dorothy Larry K. Peter

man, Kingston, and Janae dha Movie

Buffs, Appellees. Defendants and SMITH, Jr.,

Stephen R. Plaintiff Appellee,

. v BATCHELOR,

Dorothy Larry K. Peter

man, Kingston, and Janae dba Movie

Buffs, Appellants. Defendants

Nos. 900157.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April claim, judge grant

UPWA refused to part in him fees under Smith, an whom Movie because work, employed computer Buffs had for represented throughout himself the lit- had appeals igation. Smith the trial summary his motion for court’s denial of refus- judgment on the FLSA claim and its to award him for his suc- al fees argues He cessful UPWA claim. judge eq- improperly trial formulated an remedy the ex- uitable that contravened requirements press of the state and federal agree that statutes. We the trial court in granting summary judgment erred on FLSA claim and that claim remand opinion. for consistent with this court’s denial we affirm trial attorney fees. of reviewing grant light judgment, in the we state facts nonmoving party. most favorable Petersen, E.g., 813 P.2d Rollins Smith, pro Stephen R. se. (Utah 1991); Utah State Coalition of Light, Citizens v. Utah Power & Senior Caine, City, T. Lake for defen- John Salt (Utah 1989). case, In this appellees. dants however, dispute no the facts there is over in ZIMMERMAN, respond Buffs failed Justice: because Movie timely requests for ad manner to Smith’s us on from the appeal This case before missions, thereby admitting the facts as County. District Court Davis Second had them. See Utah Smith described Jr., Smith, em- Stephen R. sued his former 36(a). admis We will consider R.Civ.P. Batchelor, Larry Pe- Dorothy K. ployers, they fact when undisputed sions as even terman, Kingston, doing busi- Janae apparently other evidence contradict (collectively “Movie ness as Movie Buffs Covey, record. See Mud Control Labs. Buffs”), violat- charging that Movie Buffs 857-8 Utah2d Fair Standards ed both Labor by the facts as drafted We therefore state (“FLSA”) Payment Utah Act and the Buffs. Smith admitted Movie (“UPWA”) refusing Wages Act 1989, Larry he had In March Peterman hired wages and overtime him the back computer for perform service company.1 left the See Smith before he accrued Buffs, company rental 29 Movie a video Act of Fair Labor Standards stores in (1988 employees than Supp.I & more ten U.S.C. §§ Act, Wyoming. joining the Payment Wages Code Utah and Before Utah Peterman, (1988) de- 34-27-1, company, Smith wrote 34-28-1 to -13 Ann. §§ understanding terms of grant- scribing his of the (amended 1991). The district Although employment. charac- summary judgment his Smith motion for ed Smith’s agree- employment FLSA terizes this letter as his UPWA claim but denied his employ- ment, formal there written Although succeeded on claim. judgment arguing that we should affirm filed notices 1. Both Smith and court, separately and appeal, eventually ever, docketed consider its claims aban- which were appeal. How- as No. 900153. consolidated on Smith’s doned concentrate brief to Buffs confines its because Movie hours, parties. contract In the ment between were Smith claims that letter, stated that he was to be a Movie Buffs owes him paid month. In and time and a employee salaried half. admissions, however, he Initially, Smith did not ask Movie Buffs wage he stated that drew a of $11.65 compensation, making overtime Despite discrepancy, hour. because written only demands under UPWA for the respond Movie Buffs failed to to Smith’s $2,657.95 wages.2 of back When Movie admissions, accept we demand, Buffs refused to accede to his paid Movie Buffs Smith an hour. $11.65 Peterman, Smith sued Kingston, and Batchelor for wages, his back overtime precise nature of the work Smith compensation, fees, and alleging during performed his tenure with Movie violations of both the UPWA and the In Buffs is far from clear. addition to his FLSA. We discuss each claim in turn. work, computer may intended Smith services; provide legal to Movie Buffs with First, argued Smith that Movie Buffs’ however, we are uncertain if and to what pay failure wages upon to his back his degree expected enjoy Movie Buffs leaving company the violated the UPWA. default, legal expertise. By regulates employers’ The UPWA pay- following Buffs admitted the statements: wages employees. ment of to their See First, not per- Movie Buffs did have Smith - 34-27-1, Utah Code Ann. 34-28-1 to §§ services; second, legal form Movie Buffs employer 13. When an employee takes an required spend per- Smith to more than 50 payroll, off employee’s wages the be- matters; third, nonlegal cent of his time on immediately come due paid and must be spent percent Smith of his time on com- twenty-four employer within hours. If the work; fourth, puter-related and Smith was upon employee’s fails to do so written employee-attorney. hired as payment, employee’s wages demand for continue to accrue date of written admissions, accept Based on the we made, payment demand until but legal did not Smith handle work for Movie longer 34-28-5(1). sixty days. than Id. during employment. Buffs the course of his Consequently, under the Smith Larry Smith’s letter to Peterman wages, including claimed both his back contemplates perform that Smith would compensation, and an additional legal collection and other services for Mov- sixty days during which independent ie Buffs as an contractor. wages accrued. Smith also claimed attor- letter also indicates that as their ney mandatory fees under the UPWA’s employment relationship progressed, Movie provision, fee which Buffs would increase Smith’s grant plaintiff court to successful rea- assign him additional duties and staff. if sonable fee recov- Therefore, we cannot conclude that Smith’s employee’s ers at least as much as employment provid- confined to be original demand. 34-27-1. Id. services, ing computer we note that agreement project seemed to his eventual action, As a second cause of Smith supervisory ascension to a role within argued pay that Movie Buffs’ refusal to company. him time and a half for his 188.15 overtime dispute pay, vacation the Fair Standards

After over Smith hours violated Labor Buffs, having employees specifically ex left Movie worked a total of Act. For all national empted, 790.2 hours from March to Au- the FLSA establishes the gust paid wage, him for minimum the work week at a 1989. Movie Buffs sets hours, hours, requires that leaving pay forty 210.2 hours’ maximum of unpaid employees forty hours of work due. Because 188.15of those hours who exceed owing explain admitted to Smith 2. Smith does not how he reached the because Movie Buffs $2,657.95 figure. unpaid accept multi- wages, The 210.2 hours this total as plied by hourly wage of $11.65 Smith's admitted correct. $2,448.83. Nonetheless, figure in a results claim, holding, plaintiff “The cannot paid one and one-half FLSA per week must be laws recover under both federal state regular compensation. times their loss.” for the same Employers refuse 206-207. who U.S.C. §§ their pay and a half are time liable all, Judge Cornaby ordered Mov unpaid overtime com- employees for their $7,544.80,plus costs. ie amount pensation equal “an additional subsequently Movie Buffs moved to set employ- liquidated damages,” unless the or, alternatively, judgment aside good faith that their with- ers believed amend admis permission to withdraw or its consistent with holding overtime was Judge Cornaby denied sions default. provisions of the FLSA. motions.4 216(b), In motion for §§ court, Judge Before attacks our re- argued that he should judgment, Smith Cornaby’s of and denial the FLSA claim $3,544.80 liquidated as cover an additional argues grant attorney refusal to fees. He damages, a reasonable attor- plus costs and Judge Cornaby improperly that crafted an mandatory attor- ney fee under the FLSA’s remedy transgressed that ex- equitable the 216(b). ney provision.3 Id. fee § of the press command the UPWA and not FLSA. Because the FLSA does Cornaby had Judge held that defendants UPWA, argues, preempt he for admitted default Smith’s federal Buffs violated both state granted summary judg- admissions consequences of law and must bear Based on ment on Smith’s UPWA claim. both, including requirements their of attor- evidence, he Smith that awarded ney agree Judge Cornaby fees. We that comprised of over- pay, a sum both not have dismissed Smith’s FLSA should regular compensation, and time and that claim and remand for of regular sixty days during which his Judge Cornaby’s claim. We affirm both Code wages continued to accrue. See Utah summary judgment under the for Smith However, 34-28-5(1). Judge Cor- Ann. § grant attorney and his refusal to UPWA request naby for denied fees. that, UPWA, al- reasoning fees under fees, for though the statute called applicable note the standard of We first sufficient, $4,000 penalty consider- Summary judgment appropriate review. is fact ing case” and the fact equities genuine “the in this when no issue of material attorney, apparently to moving party was an is entitled exists and judgment Smith had handled of law. Utah concluding that because matter himself, 56(c); Petersen, had incurred v. 813 litigation he R.Civ.P. Rollins 1156, (Utah 1991); 1159 v. also denied Smith’s P.2d Landes attorney fees. He entirely by subsequent judgment, summary judgment Although is remedied his motion for 3. wages un- of back under the UPWA ambiguous, apparently demanded his Smith’s award recovery penalties paid wages poses no of for under the UPWAand the FLSA. bar to both penalties respective viola- statutes. to the of both state and federal In addition violations tion, recovery provide for of un- statutes appeal its second amended In its notice of paid compensation. UPWA allows statement, docketing claimed wages, Movie Buffs also unpaid Code 34-28- Utah Ann. all 5(1), had abused his discretion that refusing trial the FLSA reimbursement while judgment or compensation, unpaid set aside the overtime to 216(b). admis- allow to withdraw or amend the it Movie Buffs failed to brief sions. unpaid provision Despite each statute’s long have held that issue this court. We before wages, request for back we consider Smith’s appellant fails to brief an issue where an wages only under the UPWA. Once See, e.g., v. appeal, point Reid including is waived. wages, his back court awarded Smith overtime, 206, 460, 455, Anderson, 211 208 Utah P.2d 116 under the were 502, Winters, (1949); 114 Utah judgment paid longer “unpaid.” McFarlane The UPWA 494, (1949); see 201 495 also Pixton wages, thereby obviating un- P.2d Smith’s claim for Co., 809 P.2d Mutual Auto. Ins. paid wages FLSA. State Farm under the Therefore, (Utah Nevertheless, Ct.App.1991). we will oc- FLSA violation 751 because the judge’s of Movie Buffs’ denial review the trial at the time Movie failed curred compensation was not motions. Bank, Capital City begin P.2d survey with a of the doc (Utah 1990); Utah State Coalition Sen- preemption. trine of Supremacy Under the Light, ior Citizens v. Power & Clause, Congress power has the preempt Const, (Utah 1989). P.2d Because sum- VI, state law. U.S. art. cl. 2. When mary judgment granted is as a matter of interpreting statutes, courts infer Con fact, law rather than gress’ we review the trial intent power to exercise this in three legal court’s conclusions for correctness. first, different circumstances: when the City, Ward v. statute explicitly Congress states that in Richfield (Utah 1990); Landes, 1129; 795 P.2d at law; tends to preempt second, state when Division Consumer Protection v. Rio Congress legislated has so comprehensively Oil, Ltd., Vista (Utah occupies it regula entire field of Utah State Coalition Senior Cit- tion, leaving no room for the states izens, 776 P.2d at 634. supplement law; third, when law, state law conflicts with federal either presents questions This case us with two impossible it comply with both First, of law: should the court trial or in that the state law stands as an ob allowed Smith to recover under both state accomplishment stacle to the congres second, and federal And law? should the objectives. v. ARC Am. sional California trial court have allowed Smith to collect a Corp., 93, 100-01, 1661, 490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. reasonable fee under either stat- 1665, 104 (1989); Volt L.Ed.2d 86 Informa ute? We address each issue in turn. Sciences, tion Inc. v. Board Trustees We first address whether Smith Univ., the Leland Junior 489 Stanford should have recovered under both state 468, 477, 1248, 1254, U.S. 109 S.Ct. 103 federal law. The trial court found and (1989); Northwest L.Ed.2d 488 Pipe Cent. argues equity pro Movie Buffs now that Corp. Corp. line v. State Comm’n Kan hibits both state and federal for sas, 493, 509, 1262, 1273, 489 U.S. 109 S.Ct. the same violation. Eq This is incorrect. (1989); 103 L.Ed.2d 509 Malone v. White uity the abridge follows law. It cannot Corp., Motor 497, 504, 435 U.S. 98 S.Ct. explicit, See statutory requirement. 1185, 1190, (1978); City of 55 L.Ed.2d 443 Stroud, 905, Stroud (Utah 906 Terminal, Inc., Burbank v. Lockheed Air Immigration see also and Natural 1854, 1859, 411 U.S. 93 S.Ct. 36 Pangilinan, ization Serv. v. 875, 486 U.S. (1973). L.Ed.2d 547 now examine the We 883, 2216, 2210, 108 S.Ct. 100 L.Ed.2d 882 any FLSA to see whether it falls into denied, reh’g 1264, 27, 487 U.S. 109 S.Ct. preemption categories. these three City (1988); Alewine v. 101 L.Ed.2d 977 Initially, we note that the FLSA contains 1060, Augusta, Council 699 F.2d 1070 express preempt federal intent to state denied, (11th Cir.1983), cert. 1027, 470 U.S. 218; law. See U.S.C. Maccabees Mut. 29 § 1391, 105 S.Ct. 84 L.Ed.2d 781 Al Perez-Rosado, Ins. 45, Co. 641 F.2d Life though the explicitly trial court did not hold (1st Cir.1981). It therefore does not fall argue and Movie Buffs does not now preemption category. into the first preempts UPWA, appre the FLSA the Second, preemption may comprehen hension of have underlain the FLSA is not so “plaintiff implies congressional the trial court’s statement it sive that intent to occupy wage payments. cannot recover under both federal and the field of Sec 218(a) dispel state for the same To laws loss.” tion states that the FLSA’s minimum apprehension, preemp wage requirements this we address the and overtime do not enacting argument. preempt prevent tion If the FLSA does their own states UPWA, judge protective the erred in allow statutes that are more of em 218(a); Ovemite ing recovery preempted ployees. for Smith’s state § Tianti, 220, Transp. If, hand, Co. v. cause of action. the 926 F.2d the other — denied, (2d Cir.), -, cert. preempt does not U.S. FLSA (1991); Cosme refusing trial erred to consider S.Ct. 116 L.Ed.2d Deshler, Nieves v. federal cause of action. 786 F.2d 452 n. 20 202(a). denied, Consequently, (1st Cir.), 107 ers.” 29 U.S.C. 479 U.S. cert. (1986); pre- FLSA does not fall into the third Doctors S.Ct. L.Ed.2d category. emption Redo, 558 F.2d Hosp., Inc. v. Silva Cir.1977). Congress al (1st Since three Because none of the circumstances directly even in areas regulation state lows preemption courts infer are in which FLSA, Congress by could affected case, present in this we hold that the FLSA occupy the law to intended federal In withhold- preempt does not the UPWA. wage regulation that the FLSA field of failing pay ing Smith’s back affect, re such as the UPWA's does not overtime, for him time and half payment of prompt quirement of separate laws: Buffs violated two one fall therefore does not wages. FLSA It and one federal. therefore must state category. into the second consequences of each. bear not conflict with Finally, the does UPWA Having determined that stat- provisions goals. The the FLSA’s or case, applicable we next statute wrongs different are directed toward utes whether, facts, given admitted examine supply different remedies. Whereas Fair should recover under the Labor wages and maxi- the FLSA sets minimum matter, Act. a threshold we Standards As re- hours that workers mum examining note that after working over- compensation extra ceive admissions, say any cannot time, employers ensures UPWA certainty that Movie admitted its lia employees’ wages. See promptly their admitting bility that it under FLSA 207; Ann. Utah Code 29 U.S.C. §§ compensation. Al owed Smith overtime 34-28-5. though of the admissions touch on several overtime, subject none establishes here, cases, recognize that some enjoyed protections.6 Be that Smith FLSA appear similar to those remedies will dispositive are not on cause the admissions by this provided the UPWA.5 issue, this turn to other evidence in the we similarity not of remedies does coincidental record to determine whether Smith should similarity rights. of The stat- indicate a inquiry the FLSA. This re recover under harmo- are aimed toward different but utes parameters quires understanding of the employer possible is for an nious ends. It FLSA, we sketch below. of which simply by com- comply with both laws curtailing hours pensating exempted by for or worked specifically stat- Unless forty per promptly ute, protected by of week and every employee excess is FLSA Prompt hour, paying wages employees. to its wage, and overtime restrictions. Professionals, administrators, way in no and execu- payment wages frustrates maintaining exempt protections. “the minimum goal tives are from FLSA health, 213(a)(1). necessary question living 29 U.S.C. standard § profes- well-being employee serves as a efficiency, general of work- whether an them, liquidated wages presented dam- 188.15 overtime which is the due for his 5. As Smith ages compen- bore a coincidental similar- overtime of both statutes hours. He should not receive ity. regular two While Smith claimed sation for his 22.05 hours. $3,544.80 pay under he claimed months' particular, Buffs admitted to two equal In Movie penalty unpaid to his over- FLSA for the salary. may requests regarding unpaid rough similarity One compensation. Such time $2,657.95 congru- why judge stated Movie Buffs owed Smith explain confused the congru- wages; Movie Buffs the statutes' remedies with the the other stated that ence of $3,544.80 they rights wages. confer. In mo- ence of owed him in back his summary judgment, Smith character- however, tion for actuality, similarity regular his ized the total as the sum of wrong. Although, confusing, as it was compensation. plus How- below, his overtime we remand the FLSA claim discussed ever, nothing in admissions themselves and therefore make no factual the trial court $3,544.80 figure compen- determinations, linked the be- we note that on record us, computation penal- Buffs did not admit sation. Because Movie owing fore Smith's overtime, equal it could have admit- ty Smith's An amount is incorrect. $3,287.92, compensation liability under FLSA. ted unpaid overtime grounds, sional, administrator, (D.C.Cir.1989) (per or an executive 872 F.2d 1144 depends employment curiam). of the on the details This is an issue to be determined arrangement, particularly salary upon remand because it facts be- responsibilities position of the and the edu- yond Therefore, those before us now. we job. training required cation and remand Smith’s FLSA claim for (1991). See 29 C.F.R. 541.1-541.602 § by the trial court. case, joined In this Movie Buffs turn to the now final issue agreement provide under the that he would presented by this case: Should Smith’s re computer service and collection and other covery under the attorney UPWA include legal services and that Movie Buffs would fees should Smith recover assign him “additional and staff” duties as fees under the FLSA if on remand he suc performance warranted. On these ceeds on his federal claim? The trial facts, we are unsure whether Smith is a attorney fees, saying denied administrative, professional, an or an exec- equities was barred because of “the in this employee exempt utive from the FLSA. case” and because Smith was an Computer profes- workers are considered represented throughout and had himself exempt only if they sionals from the FLSA litigation. salary higher command a than six and one- wage, half the minimum a sum times Although judge’s we find the trial See per exceeds Smith’s hour. $11.65 see Stroud v. equity misplaced, reliance on 541.5c(a); 206(a). C.F.R. Stroud, (Utah 1988), 758 P.2d we Thus, exempt depends status agree pro litigation that Smith’s se should first, legal training two issues: whether his not secure him fees. It is the employment infected his and made him a general pro litigants rule that se should not second, professional, par- whether the litiga- recover fees for successful serving ties envisioned Smith’s See, Bank, e.g., Bone v. Hibernia tion. an executive or administrative ca- (N.D.Cal.1973); F.Supp. pacity supervisor computer of a staff of Schuckardt, O’Neil v. Idaho workers. Alaska Fed. Cf. Although accept as admitted that & Loan Ass’n Sav. Juneau Bern- perform legal during Smith did not services hardt, (Alaska 1990); Buffs, his four months at Movie his em- Cos., O’Neil v. Lumber Co. v. Nickelodeon ployment agreement contemplates Smith’s 25, 28, 1291, P.2d 190 Mont. 617 1293 provision legal of collection and other ser- (1980). recognize We that some courts de- supervision vices and his of a future staff. part general proscription from this when Deciding expectation whether this of exer- attorney. See, e.g., pro litigant se an is cising supervisory power providing le- 227, Cassidy, 625 F.2d (9th Ellis v. 230-31 gal exempt employ- made services Hanger, 650 P.2d Cir.1980); 386, Burrell v. require inquiry ee will a detailed into the (Alaska 1982) curiam); v. (per 387 Renfrew employment arrangement. facts 1105, 1109-10, Loysen, Cal.App.3d 175 222 541.1-541.602; See 29 C.F.R. see also 413, Friedman v. (1985); Cal.Rptr. 415 Co., 330 Walling v. General Indus. U.S. Backman, 938, (Fla.Ct.App. 453 So.2d 938 547-50, 884-85, 545, 883, 67 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed. 626, Whinery, Mich.App. 1984); Wells v. 34 Univ., (1947); Prakash v. American 1088 curiam); 630, 81, (1971) (per 192 N.W.2d 83 1174, (D.C.Cir.1984); 727 F.2d 1176-77 Corp., v. Winer Jonal 169 Mont. Co., 650, Drug Donovan v. Carls 703 F.2d McMahon v. 1094, (1976); 1096-97 (2d Cir.1983), overruled on other 652 Schwartz, 80, 86-88, 438 109 Misc.2d McLaughlin grounds by v. Richland Shoe v. Tel- 215, (1981); Hamilton N.Y.S.2d 219 Co., 1677, 128, 486 U.S. 108 S.Ct. 100 106, (Okla.1981). Corp., ex 108 KDFM- (1988); Dalheim v. L.Ed.2d 115 TV, (N.D.Tex.1988); join courts in 493, decline to these allow- F.Supp. 706 495 We Post, ing pro attorneys recover fees while Washington v. The se Sherwood 677 rev’d on other 9, (D.D.C.1988), pro litigants go uncompensated. In F.Supp. lay 14 se 474 ing lawyers view, pro fees to se discriminates such a result discriminates be-

our litigants. lay attorney litigants.” I be- lay attorney It is a between tween policy underlying the allow- advantage lawyer-litigant lieve that the sufficient attorney fees liti- capable competently ance of for successful he or she is that gants under the FLSA and UPWA presenting his or her claim without this are a different result on issue. of retained counsel. Because we need advantage by giving to enhance that loath rule, general As a recovera- amounts as a lawyer-litigant so ble under the FLSA and the UPWA are party’s also as that party, successful but attorney any fees exceed small that will pro litigants se attorney, we hold Hence, potential recovery. unless an fees, attorney regard- should recover available, award fees is work- professional status. less of their See Con rights ers would be unable enforce their Inc., 137 Ariz. Properties, v. Cal-Az nor policy To under these statutes. further the 896, (1983); 53, 55-56, 668 898-99 P.2d statutes, pro attorney litigant se Setzke, 116 Henning, & Chtd. Swanson compensated loss should be for economic 202, 909, (Idaho 199, P.2d Idaho 774 resulting pursuit rights her his or Ct.App.1989); Apart Riverside Golden Otherwise, time and under these acts. ments, Inc., 478, (La.Ct.App. 488 So.2d in pursuing trouble involved such a case Realty Dev. White v. Arlen & cf. outweigh would far the ultimate benefit (4th Cir.), Corp., 614 F.2d cert. discourage of the and thus enforcement denied, 100 S.Ct. U.S. FLSA and UPWA. (1980); L.Ed.2d 1116 Falcone Internal policy appli- equally I that this submit (6th Cir.1983), Serv., 714 Rev. F.2d non-attorney agree I litigants. cable to denied, cert. 466 U.S. S.Ct. allowing pro se majority with the therefore af 80 L.Ed.2d litigant denying to recover while firm the trial court’s of this right litigants other pro that same se issue. lay unfairly would discriminate between summary, judge’s In affirm the trial attorney pro litigants. se and his denial of fees deny right attor- rather than to recover claim, judgment for Smith on the UPWA I ney pro litigants, all se would fees to against summary judgment reverse pro litigants recover fees allow all se claim, and remand for re- they can show economic loss where disposition of claim consistent the FLSA sulting of time from income- from diversion opinion. of their producing litigation activities to view, my position better claims. C.J., HALL, HOWE, C.J., Associate policy the statu- promotes underlying DURHAM, J., concur. grant tory fees.1 STEWART, (Concurring and Justice: widely accepted, some Although not Dissenting). recognized I would position courts non-attorney acknowledging opinion except adopt by majority with the

I concur may an award pro pro litigants se be entitled to portion dealing se liti- for that circum- attorney appropriate fees in fees under gant’s entitlement to (“FLSA”) See, Dep’t e.g., Act stances. Crooker U.S. Fair Labor Standards Cir.1980) (2d F.2d Wages Treasury, Act Payment Utah and the Smith, litigant se (implicitly holding pro that a (“UPWA”). majority holds that The un- prosecution of lawsuit who shows that attorney, se cannot recover attor- pro as a Act caused litigant of Information lay pro se der Freedom ney fees because a would income-producing time from diversion of entitled to recover fees a similar not be fees); activity may be entitled to “grant- reasons that majority action. Const, I, party. art. is a position our which he or she more consistent with 1. This is also provision gives litigant which constitutional any right pro civil to act se in action Justice, of time F.2d 1 loss sustained from diversion Dep 't Cox U.S. (D.C.Cir.1979) (court may income-producing award activities. litigant in Free non-attorney pro se fees to lawsuit). Act

dom of Information sum, awarding policy for given prevailing litigant

attorney fees to a case, I see no reason and UPWA litigants lay

why pro se compensated for economic

should not be

Case Details

Case Name: Smith v. Batchelor

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Apr 28, 1992

Citation: 832 P.2d 467

Docket Number: 900153, 900157

Court Abbreviation: Utah