Lawyers in FLSA cases and particularly on the defense side should view this as a cautionary tale: Tendering a check for the wages at issue does not moot the plaintiff's claim. FLSA claims are live until there is a judgment or a settlement approved by the court. And plaintiffs DO get their fees for litigating over the issue of attorneys' fees.
Simply put: A legitimate FLSA case, a skilled attorney on the plaintiff side, and defense counsel who do not understand the applicable legal framework make for disastrous results.
Express working capital llc v Starving Students IncM P
Synopsis
Background: Buyer of corporation's future credit card receivables brought action against seller-corporation and its owner, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Defendants asserted usury defense and counterclaim. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. EQT had leased land from Alex Cooper, et al with an initial five-year term. The lease provided for a five-year extension. It also required EQT to drill at least one well on/under the property during the first five-year lease. EQT failed to drill a well in the first term but instead elected to extend the lease for an additional five years. The federal judge found that EQT has the right to extend the lease even if they didn't drill a well during the first term.
Express working capital llc v Starving Students IncM P
Synopsis
Background: Buyer of corporation's future credit card receivables brought action against seller-corporation and its owner, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, and fraudulent inducement. Defendants asserted usury defense and counterclaim. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
The decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. EQT had leased land from Alex Cooper, et al with an initial five-year term. The lease provided for a five-year extension. It also required EQT to drill at least one well on/under the property during the first five-year lease. EQT failed to drill a well in the first term but instead elected to extend the lease for an additional five years. The federal judge found that EQT has the right to extend the lease even if they didn't drill a well during the first term.
Judge Mosman avoided directly ruling on the application of SB 814 to the defense costs being sought by Schnitzer, instead holding that Schnitzer was judicially estopped from arguing that its defense counsel was "independent counsel" subject to SB 814.
Decision in case where landowners claimed because the driller did not pay annual rent payments (for non-drilling) in a timely manner, it released them from the lease. The PA Superior Court disagreed and found for the drillers.
Sample Bail Bond Related Criminal Law MotionsSamuel Partida
A list of common motions filed in a criminal case related to the bail bond are provided. Six sample motions are provided that a prosecutor may typically file. Seven sample motions are provided that a defense attorney may typically file over the span of a typical criminal case.
Judge Mosman avoided directly ruling on the application of SB 814 to the defense costs being sought by Schnitzer, instead holding that Schnitzer was judicially estopped from arguing that its defense counsel was "independent counsel" subject to SB 814.
Decision in case where landowners claimed because the driller did not pay annual rent payments (for non-drilling) in a timely manner, it released them from the lease. The PA Superior Court disagreed and found for the drillers.
Sample Bail Bond Related Criminal Law MotionsSamuel Partida
A list of common motions filed in a criminal case related to the bail bond are provided. Six sample motions are provided that a prosecutor may typically file. Seven sample motions are provided that a defense attorney may typically file over the span of a typical criminal case.
Reply to State's Objection to Request For Court-Ordered SanctionsRich Bergeron
This is my quick reply to the ridiculously deficient objection to my sanctions motion filed by Deputy Grafton County Attorney Tara Heater. The judge ended up not giving Heater an extension and set the hearing for March 5, 2021.
Town of Haverhill's Motion for Summary Judgment on DTC CounterclaimsRich Bergeron
Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment on DTC's Counterclaims in dispute over payment. The firm's attorneys had a giant conflict of interest in this case and proceeded to botch the proper retention process in such a scenario. Read all about it at www.planbjustice.com
El BoNY consideró las "amenazas" europeas pero mostró fidelidad a su país y le pidieron a Griesa que aclare qué se debe hacer con el dinero argentino, retenido desde el 26 de junio.
Conduct of arbitral proceeding part 2 vaibhav goyalVaibhav Goyal
Within the period of time agreed upon by the parties or determined by the arbitral tribunal, the claimant shall state the facts supporting his claim, the points at issue and the relief or remedy sought, and the respondent shall state his defence in respect of these particulars, unless the parties have otherwise agreed as to the required elements of those statements.
This presentation discusses settlements of workers\' compensation cases in Florida. The discussion includes federal law affecting personal injury cases, MSA\'s and CMS participation. General contract principles are also explored.
Town of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for Declaratory Judgment CaseRich Bergeron
The town of Haverhill's Summary Judgment Motion for their Declaratory Judgment Request. Read more about the small town coup attempt that gave rise to this case at www.planbjustice.com
Action to Recover Solicitor's Fees - Locus Standi and Privity Hurdle: The cas...Acas Media
Under Nigerian law, one who practices a profession and renders his professional services to another at his request is entitled to receive remuneration or professional fees from the beneficiary of such services unless he voluntarily waives the payment . In the case of a legal practitioner, one of the options open to recover fees or costs due to him in his professional capacity is a right of action in court to recover such fees .
Similar to FLSA Litigation - Federal Court - MDFL Tampa - Fee Entitlement & Mootness (20)
Pollard PLLC lawsuit seeking (a) declaratory judgment holding a non-compete agreement unenforceable and damages for (b) unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (c) defamation per se and (d) tortious interference.
Pollard PLLC represents 7 real estate brokers and their new company KD Premier Realty against their former employer, Properties of the Villages. In the attached document, the Magistrate Judge has recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Firm can be reached at 954-332-2380.
Complaint - Bartender Non-Compete Case - Tampa Federal CourtPollard PLLC
This Complaint arises out of a hospitality and staffing company's assertion that several bartenders are subject to non-compete restrictions. The at issue non-compete agreements were never signed.
Pollard PLLC has initiated a lawsuit against the company WTS International, Inc. for tortious interference, defamation, and a declaratory judgment holding that no such non-compete agreements exist, or, that such restrictions are not enforceable.
The plaintiff in this case runs a janitorial service that primarily cleans restaurants. They have sued a former employee, Altman, for breach of a non-compete agreement and theft of trade secrets.
To state the obvious: The identity and contact information of the Cheesecake Factory is not a trade secret. Knowing how to clean a restaurant is not a trade secret. Quoting a price for cleaning services is not a trade secret.
Pollard PLLC represents Altman and has countersued for the following:
1. Declaratory judgment holding the non-compete agreement unenforceable.
2. False advertising under the Lanham Act.
3. Defamation. The Plaintiff has gone to multiple customers and told them that Altman stole their trade secrets and even stole equipment. Altman maintains that these allegations are total fabrications.
4. Tortious interference.
5. Breach of contract for failure to pay certain commissions.
Altman, now the Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff is seeking at least $10 million in damages in addition to corrective advertising to clear her name.
Complaint - Woodbridge Liquidation Trustee vs. Woodbridge's LawyersPollard PLLC
The trustee of the Woodbridge Liquidation Trust has brought a $500 million+ lawsuit against the lawyers and law firms that it alleges helped facilitate the Woodbridge Ponzi scheme.
Representatives Nunes Sues CNN for Defamation & $435 Million in DamagesPollard PLLC
Representative Devin Nunes has sued CNN for defamation and is seeking $435 million in damages. Per the Complaint: Nunes alleges that CNN knowingly published numerous false statements about his alleged involvement in Ukraine.
Per the Complaint: Nunes was not in Ukraine - as alleged - digging up dirt of the Bidens. This was a false narrative invented by Parnas to obtain leverage and cut a deal.
Let's unpack this:
The Complaint is full of theatrics but probably survives a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has alleged that the statements at issue were false. The truth or falsity of those statements is a factual dispute. As for the defamatory nature of the statements: The statements could be defamatory, but probably don't rise to the level of defamation per se.
The Washington DC Attorney General's Office has filed a lawsuit against DoorDash. The Complaint alleges that DoorDash engaged in false and deceptive practices regarding its tipping policies. Basically, DoorDash used "tips" to subsidize worker pay---- while representing to the consuming public that the tip was exactly that--- a tip that went to the driver.
The reason why lawsuits by state AG's are so important here: Most people - whether workers or consumers - probably can't sue DoorDash because of arbitration provisions and class action waivers. But those things are no obstacle to a state AG.
SDFL - Order Dismissing Various Claims - Jurisdiction - Trade SecretsPollard PLLC
The Plaintiff filed a 20 count lawsuit alleging, among other counts, theft of trade secrets, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty, trademark infringement, violations of the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and more.
This is the classic shock and awe, everything and the kitchen sink approach to litigation.
In this instance, that approach backfired spectacularly. The Court dismissed 17 of the counts on jurisdictional grounds -- holding they cannot be refiled in federal court but must be pursued, if at all, in state court.
The court also dismissed one count with prejudice. Denied the motion to dismiss with respect to one count. And granted leave to amend on one count--- but warned plaintiff and its counsel to mind Rule 11 if they decide to amend.
Think twice before you file a 20 count complaint in federal court where you are literally throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.
Motion to Dismiss Claims for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Tortious Interference under Florida law. Tampa, Florida. Hillsborough County Circuit Court - Complex Business Litigation Division.
Pollard PLLC
P. 954-332-2380
Appellate Brief - Appeal of Preliminary Injunction - United States Court of A...Pollard PLLC
On brief with my former colleagues from Boies Schiller. This is a major appeal of a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Critical issues addressed herein:
1. Enforceability of restrictive covenants under CT law.
2. Application of CT's multi-factor test for reasonableness of restrictive covenants and/or non-compete agreement.
3. The public interest inquiry under FRCP 65.
4. The defense of prior breach under CT law.
5. The concept of irreparable under FRCP 65.
6. Whether protracted delay precludes a finding of irreparable harm and forecloses preliminary injunctive relief.
7. Whether the existence of settlement discussions/negotiations can justify a party's protracted delay in seeking injunctive relief.
Jonathan Pollard
Pollard PLLC
P: 954-332-2380
Middle District of Florida - Recent Decision Denying Trade Secret InjunctionPollard PLLC
This is a great example of how courts should evaluate a request for a preliminary injunction in a misappropriation of trade secrets case.
Courts and judges should never credit boilerplate, generic allegations about trade secrets and misappropriation. All such allegations should be put to the test. The key questions:
What is the trade secret? Has it been identified? Has it been boiled down to something concrete and tangible? Is the same thing publicly available? Does it have economic value? Has it been misappropriated? Were there reasonable efforts to keep it secret?
Even when the plaintiff has good answers to all of these questions, they still have to prove irreparable harm.
The 11th Circuit repeatedly has made this clear: Preliminary injunctions are supposed to be extraordinary and drastic remedies. They should be issued only in dire circumstances where there is a clear, imminent threat of irreparable.
Great read.
Jonathan Pollard
Pollard PLLC
Non-Compete & Trade Secret Lawyers
954-332-2380
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss False Advertising & Defamation ClaimsPollard PLLC
Order denying Motion to Dismiss claims for false advertising under the Lanham Act and defamation. Southern District of Florida 2019. Pollard PLLC. Jonathan Pollard.
MDFL - Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret & Fraud ClaimsPollard PLLC
In this order, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denies the defendants' motions to dismiss claims for breach of contract, theft of trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 USC 1836 et. seq., fraud and aiding and abetting fraud.
In relevant part, the Court rejects the defendants' efforts to impose a summary judgment like burden at the pleading stage. Notable holdings include: (1) The question of whether information constitutes a trade secret is a question of fact normally resolved by a jury after full presentation of evidence. (2) A claim for misappropriation may exist not only where the defendant itself is alleged to have stolen trade secrets, but where the defendant is alleged to have obtained the trade secrets while knowing that they were acquired by improper means. (3) The allegation that a defendant induced a plaintiff to enter an NDA with no intention of honoring it states a claim for fraud in the inducement that is not barred by the independent tort doctrine.
The plaintiff is represented by Fort Lauderdale, Florida based Pollard PLLC. The firm has extensive experience litigating complex non-compete, trade secret, trademark and unfair competition claims. Their office can be reached at 954-332-2380.
Complaint for legal malpractice, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting fraud, and civil conspiracy. Pollard PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301.
Complaint against Magellan Health, Inc. for $1 Million Unpaid Bonus CompensationPollard PLLC
Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Magellan Health, Inc. alleging that Magellan failed to pay an employee more than $1 million+ in earned bonus compensation. United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, 2018. Pollard PLLC.
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss False Advertising & Defamation ClaimsPollard PLLC
Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss various claims, including claims for false advertising and defamation per se.
The at issue advertisements and statements consisted of the following: A company allegedly advised numerous customers and vendors in the industry that the plaintiff had stolen its trade secrets and engaged in illegal conduct.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida competition lawyer Jonathan Pollard presents on Non-Compete Agreements, Antitrust & the Rule of Reason. This presentation covers (1) the antitrust underpinnings of non-compete law (2) the classic antitrust rule of reason framework, which is the basis for all non-compete legitimate business interest tests and (3) antitrust risks in connection with non-compete agreements. This presentation is particularly timely given the Department of Justice's recent statement that it intends to pursue criminal prosecutions of firms engaged in no-poaching agreements.
To reach Pollard PLLC, please call their office at 954-332-2380.
Federal False Advertising & Trade Libel LawsuitPollard PLLC
This is an example of a recent case filed by Pollard PLLC, a litigation firm based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida that focuses on competition law.
This case involves a dispute between former business colleagues. The Plaintiff left the Defendant's company to start his own business. There was no non-compete, non-solicitation or confidentiality agreement. Fearing fair competition by the Plaintiff, the Defendant set out on a campaign to destroy Plaintiff's reputation in the industry.
For more information, visit https://www.pollardllc.com or call 954-332-2380.
Answer, Counterclaims & Third Party Claims - Non-Compete & Tortious InterferencePollard PLLC
This is one of our cases in Volusia County, Florida. Our clients - all of the defendants in the case - were sued for breach of a non-compete agreement, breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference.
We responded with counterclaims for a declaratory judgment holding the non-compete agreement(s) unenforceable, third party claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and a demand for indemnification.
This is a good example of our level of work. We have extensive experience litigating non-compete and tortious interference cases on both sides. We prosecute and defend these types of cases.
In every case, we have a process: First, we master the facts. Many lawyer and law firms get involved in a case and immediately focus on law. In our view, that is the wrong approach. All cases are driven by facts. Any legal strategy must be tailored to the specific facts of a specific case.
We do not take anything for granted. We do not default to the same tired boilerplate pleadings. In every new case, we fashion a specific strategy for that case.
If you have a non-compete or tortious interference case, just give us a call at 9543-32-2380. That's what we're here for.
PRECEDENT AS A SOURCE OF LAW (SAIF JAVED).pptxOmGod1
Precedent, or stare decisis, is a cornerstone of common law systems where past judicial decisions guide future cases, ensuring consistency and predictability in the legal system. Binding precedents from higher courts must be followed by lower courts, while persuasive precedents may influence but are not obligatory. This principle promotes fairness and efficiency, allowing for the evolution of the law as higher courts can overrule outdated decisions. Despite criticisms of rigidity and complexity, precedent ensures similar cases are treated alike, balancing stability with flexibility in judicial decision-making.
Military Commissions details LtCol Thomas Jasper as Detailed Defense CounselThomas (Tom) Jasper
Military Commissions Trial Judiciary, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Notice of the Chief Defense Counsel's detailing of LtCol Thomas F. Jasper, Jr. USMC, as Detailed Defense Counsel for Abd Al Hadi Al-Iraqi on 6 August 2014 in the case of United States v. Hadi al Iraqi (10026)
WINDING UP of COMPANY, Modes of DissolutionKHURRAMWALI
Winding up, also known as liquidation, refers to the legal and financial process of dissolving a company. It involves ceasing operations, selling assets, settling debts, and ultimately removing the company from the official business registry.
Here's a breakdown of the key aspects of winding up:
Reasons for Winding Up:
Insolvency: This is the most common reason, where the company cannot pay its debts. Creditors may initiate a compulsory winding up to recover their dues.
Voluntary Closure: The owners may decide to close the company due to reasons like reaching business goals, facing losses, or merging with another company.
Deadlock: If shareholders or directors cannot agree on how to run the company, a court may order a winding up.
Types of Winding Up:
Voluntary Winding Up: This is initiated by the company's shareholders through a resolution passed by a majority vote. There are two main types:
Members' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is solvent (has enough assets to pay off its debts) and shareholders will receive any remaining assets after debts are settled.
Creditors' Voluntary Winding Up: The company is insolvent and creditors will be prioritized in receiving payment from the sale of assets.
Compulsory Winding Up: This is initiated by a court order, typically at the request of creditors, government agencies, or even by the company itself if it's insolvent.
Process of Winding Up:
Appointment of Liquidator: A qualified professional is appointed to oversee the winding-up process. They are responsible for selling assets, paying off debts, and distributing any remaining funds.
Cease Trading: The company stops its regular business operations.
Notification of Creditors: Creditors are informed about the winding up and invited to submit their claims.
Sale of Assets: The company's assets are sold to generate cash to pay off creditors.
Payment of Debts: Creditors are paid according to a set order of priority, with secured creditors receiving payment before unsecured creditors.
Distribution to Shareholders: If there are any remaining funds after all debts are settled, they are distributed to shareholders according to their ownership stake.
Dissolution: Once all claims are settled and distributions made, the company is officially dissolved and removed from the business register.
Impact of Winding Up:
Employees: Employees will likely lose their jobs during the winding-up process.
Creditors: Creditors may not recover their debts in full, especially if the company is insolvent.
Shareholders: Shareholders may not receive any payout if the company's debts exceed its assets.
Winding up is a complex legal and financial process that can have significant consequences for all parties involved. It's important to seek professional legal and financial advice when considering winding up a company.
DNA Testing in Civil and Criminal Matters.pptxpatrons legal
Get insights into DNA testing and its application in civil and criminal matters. Find out how it contributes to fair and accurate legal proceedings. For more information: https://www.patronslegal.com/criminal-litigation.html
ALL EYES ON RAFAH BUT WHY Explain more.pdf46adnanshahzad
All eyes on Rafah: But why?. The Rafah border crossing, a crucial point between Egypt and the Gaza Strip, often finds itself at the center of global attention. As we explore the significance of Rafah, we’ll uncover why all eyes are on Rafah and the complexities surrounding this pivotal region.
INTRODUCTION
What makes Rafah so significant that it captures global attention? The phrase ‘All eyes are on Rafah’ resonates not just with those in the region but with people worldwide who recognize its strategic, humanitarian, and political importance. In this guide, we will delve into the factors that make Rafah a focal point for international interest, examining its historical context, humanitarian challenges, and political dimensions.
ASHWINI KUMAR UPADHYAY v/s Union of India.pptxshweeta209
transfer of the P.I.L filed by lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in Delhi High Court to Supreme Court.
on the issue of UNIFORM MARRIAGE AGE of men and women.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...
FLSA Litigation - Federal Court - MDFL Tampa - Fee Entitlement & Mootness
1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MICHAEL W. KENNY,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No: 8:18-cv-2231-T-36JSS
CRITICAL INTERVENTION SERVICES,
INC. and KARL C. POULIN,
Defendants.
/
O R D E R
This cause comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed on December 14, 2018 (Doc. 27). In the Report and
Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Sneed recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion
to Stay Proceedings and to Establish Procedure to Determine Amount of Attorneys’ Fees (the
“Motion”) (Doc. 17).
All parties were furnished copies of the Report and Recommendation and were afforded
the opportunity to file objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Defendants filed their Objection
(Doc. 29), to which Plaintiff responded (Doc. 32). Upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation, and upon this Court’s independent examination of the file, it is determined that
the Objection should be overruled, the Report and Recommendation should be adopted and the
Motion denied.
I. Background
Plaintiff, Michael W. Kenny obtained a position with Defendant Critical Intervention
Services, Inc. (“CIS”) as an armed protection officer. Kenny signed a non-compete agreement
which purported to restrict him from working for, or engaging in, any business that competes with
Case 8:18-cv-02231-CEH-JSS Document 33 Filed 01/31/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID 192
2. 2
CIS or any of its affiliates. Kenny also completed a 70-hour unpaid training course at Safety &
Intelligence Institute, Inc., one of CIS’ affiliates. Kenny brings this case alleging a violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”) to pursue compensation for his time spent in the training
course. See Doc. 1.
Shortly after Kenny filed the Complaint, Defendants’ counsel contacted Kenny’s attorney
to negotiate a settlement. Several phone calls and emails ensued. Ultimately, Defendants sent
Kenny’s attorney a letter with certified checks for full tender of Kenny’s statutory damages under
the FLSA, less attorneys’ fees. They offered $6,000 in attorneys’ fees to resolve the entire case.
Kenny counteroffered with $15,000.
It is Defendants’ position that Kenny’s claim is now either moot or concluded or both, and
all that remains is the issue of his entitlement to and the amount of attorneys’ fees. Defendants
insist that the Court may stay the case on all issues except the attorneys’ fees and establish a
procedure to determine the reasonableness of Kenny’s attorneys’ fees. Doc. 17 at 6. Kenny argues
that prior to the Court evaluating his entitlement to and the reasonableness of his attorneys’ fees,
he must first obtain a judgment, consent decree, or settlement approved by the Court; none of
which has occurred.
II. Legal Standard
When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the
report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State of Georgia, 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th
Cir. 1990). Regarding those portions of the Report and Recommendation not objected to, the
district judge applies a clearly erroneous standard of review. See Gropp v. United Airlines, Inc.,
817 F. Supp. 1558, 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify in
Case 8:18-cv-02231-CEH-JSS Document 33 Filed 01/31/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID 193
3. 3
whole or in part, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.
The district judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge
with further instructions. Id.
III. Discussion
Under Section 216 of the FLSA, a prevailing party is entitled to “a reasonable attorney’s
fee to be paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Such prevailing
parties are limited to recovering those costs enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Glenn v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 841 F.2d 1567, 1575 (11th Cir. 1988); see also Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc.,
482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987) (absent explicit statutory or contractual authorization, federal courts are
bound by the limitations set out in § 1920). “To defeat the presumption and deny full costs, a
district court must have a sound basis for doing so.” Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1039
(11th Cir. 2000).
Under the FLSA, a plaintiff must either obtain a judgment on the merits or some other
judicially-sanctioned “alteration in the legal relationship of the parties” to be considered a
prevailing party. De Oliveira Sa v. A-Maculate Cleaning Serv., Inc., 17-CV-21400, 2018 WL
4426084, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 7, 2018) (quoting Buckhannon Bd. and Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va.
Dep’t of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604-05 (2001)).
The magistrate judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) which provides that
the FLSA provides for an award of attorneys’ fees only to a prevailing plaintiff, citing Wolff v.
Royal Am. Mgt., Inc., 545 Fed. Appx. 791 (11th Cir. 2013). In Wolff, the Eleventh Circuit stated
that “in the absence of a judgment on the merits, to be a prevailing party, the FLSA plaintiff needs
a stipulated or consent judgment or its ‘functional equivalent’ from the district court evincing the
court’s determination that the settlement ‘is a fair and reasonable res[o]lution of a bona fide dispute
over FLSA provisions.’ ” Id. (quoting Lynn's Food Stores, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't. of Labor, 679 F.2d
Case 8:18-cv-02231-CEH-JSS Document 33 Filed 01/31/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID 194
4. 4
1350, 1375 (11th Cir. 1982)). The Wolff court ultimately affirmed the district court’s holding that
the former employee’s acceptance of a check for statutory damages did not render her FLSA claim
moot; she retained her right to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.
Defendants cite Wolff as well. But they argue that it, and other cases like it, differ because
here they agree that Kenny is entitled to fees and costs. Doc. 28 at 4. The issue, as Defendants put
it, is a “fundamental unfairness” which gives Kenny’s attorney “improper leverage” to impede
resolution of the FLSA claim by litigating the issue of fees. See id. at 5. And they contest the
imposition of a money judgment with which they disagree, particularly given the fact that they are
willing to pay it, without admitting liability, to avoid further litigation. Id.
Ultimately, the magistrate judge concluded that because Kenny’s Complaint included a
demand for relief including his attorneys’ fees, costs, and expense of litigation under 29 U.S.C. §
216(b), Doc. 1 at 7, and he has not accepted Defendants’ tender offer, Doc. 21 at 5, no basis exists
for the Court to review the reasonableness of Kenny’s attorneys’ fees. Doc. 27 at 4.
Defendants object to the following four factual and legal conclusions in the R&R: the Court
has no procedure to evaluate the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees absent either a proposed
settlement agreement or final judgment, Doc. 27 at 2; Kenny has not accepted the tender offer, id.
at 5; Defendants’ tender and concession is not the functional equivalent of a judgment, id. at 4;
and Defendants cannot waive the procedural protections, see id. at 4. Doc. 29 at 2-3.
Kenny’s response primarily reargues his opposition to the Motion. But he clarifies that he
has since returned the tendered checks to Defendants. Ultimately, Kenny states that Defendants’
attempt at absolving themselves of liability by tendering the statutory fees cannot entitle him to
attorneys’ fees, and consequently, the Court cannot determine the reasonableness of the fees.
The Court agrees with Kenny’s position and the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Despite continually insisting that the Court should implement a procedure to determine the
Case 8:18-cv-02231-CEH-JSS Document 33 Filed 01/31/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID 195
5. 5
reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees, Defendants point to no authority justifying the Court’s
determination of the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees absent judgment, settlement with a consent
decree, or its functional equivalent. Defendants discuss an offer of judgment as an example of a
“functional equivalent” which triggers the Court’s authority to determine the reasonableness of the
fees. See Doc. 29 at 7. Yet, they made no such offer to Kenny. See Doc. 32 at 7.
The case law is clear, a triggering event must establish plaintiff as the prevailing party
before the Court can assess the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees. The fact that the liability
issue may be moot does not mean that the Court can now sua sponte decide reasonableness. The
triggering mechanism is a judgment, settlement including a consent decree, or its functional
equivalent; none of which appears in the record.
IV. Conclusion
The Court has reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s R&R de novo and accepts the
recommended disposition. The R&R appropriately reviewed the law on this subject under the
correct standard and concluded that no basis for the Court’s determination of the reasonableness
of attorneys’ fees at this time exists. The Court agrees.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Defendants’ Objection is overruled.
(2) The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 27) is adopted,
confirmed, and approved in all respects and is made a part of this Order for all
purposes, including appellate review.
(3) Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings and to Establish Procedure to Determine
Amount of Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 17) is DENIED.
Case 8:18-cv-02231-CEH-JSS Document 33 Filed 01/31/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID 196
6. 6
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida on January 31, 2019.
Copies to:
The Honorable Julie S. Sneed
Counsel of Record
Case 8:18-cv-02231-CEH-JSS Document 33 Filed 01/31/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID 197