Barfield v. Madison County Mississipi

Decision Date10 May 2000
Docket NumberNos. 98-60610,s. 98-60610
Citation212 F.3d 269
Parties(5th Cir. 2000) TERRY BARFIELD, ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; KARL BANKS; J.L. MCCULLOUGH; DAVID RICHARDSON; LOUISE SPIVEY; LUTHER WALDROP, Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs, Counter Defendants-Appellees; v. JESSIE HOPKINS, In His Individual Capacity, Third Party Defendant, Counter Claimant-Appellant. & 98-60636
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

Before POLITZ, GARWOOD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge:

Present and former employees of the Sheriff's Department in Madison County, Mississippi (collectively, Sheriff's Employees), brought this suit against defendants-appellees Madison County, Mississippi, individual members of Madison County's Board of Supervisors, and Jessie Hopkins, in his official capacity as Madison County Sheriff (collectively, Madison County). The Sheriff's Employees alleged, inter alia, that Madison County violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., by refusing to pay them owed overtime compensation. In response, Madison County asserted a third-party claim for indemnity against appellant Jessie Hopkins, in his individual capacity (Hopkins). Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of the Sheriff's Employees on their FLSA claims and in favor of Madison County on its indemnification claim against Hopkins. Madison County then settled with the Sheriff's Employees, and, pursuant to its earlier ruling, the district court ordered Hopkinsto indemnify Madison County for the amount of the settlement and for its attorneys' fees and expenses. Hopkins appeals. We reverse.

Factual and Procedural History

In December 1995, the Department of Labor began investigating reports of unpaid overtime accrued by employees of the Madison County Sheriff's Department. On September 5, 1996, before the Department of Labor completed its investigation, the Sheriff's Employees filed suit in federal district court against Madison County, Mississippi, and the individual members of Madison County's Board of Supervisors, 1 alleging they were owed unpaid overtime compensation under the FLSA. The Sheriff's Employees later amended their complaint to include, inter alia, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivations of property rights in wages for work performed and for violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and to name Jessie Hopkins, in his official capacity as Madison County Sheriff, as a defendant in the action. In its answer, Madison County filed a third-party claim seeking indemnification from Hopkins individually on the basis that he was an employer or joint employer of the Sheriff'sEmployees and individually responsible for any unpaid overtime owed to them. Hopkins then counterclaimed against Madison County, alleging that Madison County's third-party claim against him was brought in retaliation for his cooperation with the Sheriff's Employees in their attempts to obtain unpaid overtime.

After the Sheriff's Employees named Sheriff Hopkins in his official capacity as a defendant, Hopkins's attorney filed an answer on behalf of Sheriff Hopkins in his official capacity, admitting all of the substantive allegations made by the Sheriff's Employees. Madison County subsequently filed a motion to strike this answer and submitted its own answer on behalf of Sheriff Hopkins in his official capacity, denying the Sheriff's Employees' claims. In response, Hopkins moved to disqualify Madison County's counsel, for allegedly filing responses without consulting with him and that were directly inconsistent with earlier positions he espoused. The district court entered an order striking Hopkins's answer and denying the motion to disqualify. The same counsel continued to represent both Madison County and Sheriff Hopkins in his official capacity throughout the litigation, including this appeal.

Following discovery, all parties moved for partial summary judgment. The district court granted the motions in part, dismissing Hopkins's retaliation claim against Madison County and all of the Sheriff's Employees' claims, except those under the FLSA. Additionally, the district court ruled that Madison County and Hopkins individually were both "employers" under the FLSA.

A bifurcated bench trial proceeded. Beginning on March 23, 1998, the district court conducted the first half of the trial to determine liability under the FLSA and Madison County's third-party indemnification action. On March 25, 1998, the district court found Madison County violated the FLSA by refusing to pay the Sheriff's Employees overtime. In addition, the district court concluded that Madison County's refusal to pay overtime was willful and not in good faith, thereby extending the statute of limitations to three years (instead of two), 29 U.S.C. § 255, and permitting an award of liquidated damages, 29 U.S.C. § 260. Applying Mississippi common law to Madison County's third-party claim against Hopkins, the district court determined that Hopkins was primarily responsible for the unpaid overtime and ordered Hopkins to indemnify Madison County for any judgment Madison County would pay to the Sheriff's Employees for the FLSA violations.

Pending the damages phase of the trial, Madison County settled with the Sheriff's Employees for $750,000. Pursuant to its previous ruling on the indemnification claim, the district court then entered judgment in favor of Madison County against Hopkins for $750,000. Madison County subsequently filed a motion to recover attorneys' fees and expenses from Hopkins. Relying again on Mississippi common law, the district court granted Madison County its attorneys' fees and expenses, which totaled $264,430.32. Hopkins appeals.

Discussion

On appeal, Hopkins asserts the following claims of error: (1) he was not an "employer" under the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 203(d); (2) the FLSA preempts the application of Mississippi common law indemnification; (3) the district court misapplied Mississippi indemnity law; and (4) the district court should have disqualified Madison County's counsel from representing any party in the suit. We agree that the district court erred in its application of Mississippi law. Because this conclusion relieves Hopkins of the judgment entered against him, we need not address the other issues presented in this appeal.

In this appeal from a bench trial, we review the district court's factual findings for clear error. See Odom v. Frank, 3 F.3d 839, 843 (5th Cir. 1993). We review de novo the district court's determination of law, whether federal or state. See Gardes Directional Drilling v. U.S. Turnkey Exploration Co., 98 F.3d 860, 864 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Salva Regina College v. Russell, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 1225 (1991) ("The obligation of responsible appellate review and the principles of a cooperative judicial federalism underlying Erie [R. Co. v. Tompkins, 58 S.Ct. 817 (1938)] require that courts of appeals review the state-law determinations of district courts de novo.").

Madison County does not contend that the FLSA, federal common law, or Mississippi statutory law provide for its indemnification claim. Therefore, the only remaining basis for indemnification lies in Mississippi common law. Accordingly, Mississippi substantive law governs Madison County's common law indemnification claim against Hopkins. When adjudicating claims for which state law provides the rules of decision, we are bound to apply the law as interpreted by the state's highest court. See Transcontinental Gas v. Transportation Ins. Co., 953 F.2d 985, 988 (5th Cir. 1992). If the state's highest court has not spoken on the particular issue, "it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can, what the highest court of the state would decide." Id. When making such an Erie guess, we are bound by an intermediate state appellate court decision unless "convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise." First Nat'l Bank of Durant v. Trans Terr Corp., 142 F.3d 802, 809 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotations and footnote omitted). However, "we will not expand state law beyond its presently existing boundaries." Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160, 172 (5th Cir. 1994) (footnote omitted); see also Johnson v. Sawyer, 47 F.3d 716, 729 (5th Cir. 1995) (en banc) ("We have long followed the principle that we will not create 'innovative theories of recovery or defense' under local law, but will rather merely apply it 'as it currently exists.'") (quoting Galindo v. Precision American Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir. 1985) and citing several other decisions of this Court); 19 Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 4507, at 207 (2d ed. 1996) ("Nor is it the function of the federal court to expand the existing scope of state law."). By seeking indemnification from Hopkins, Madison County has petitioned the federal court to do just that--expand the existing scope of Mississippi law; we decline the invitation.

The district court ordered Hopkins to indemnify Madison County for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • Morris v. Cessna Aircraft Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • December 1, 2011
    ...court would decide otherwise. See Norwood v. Raytheon Co., 414 F.Supp.2d 659, 662–63 (W.D.Tex.2006) (citing Barfield v. Madison County, 212 F.3d 269, 272 (5th Cir.2000)). To determine what the highest state court would decide, the federal court may consider “analogous decisions, considered ......
  • In Re Endeavour Highrise
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Texas
    • July 13, 2010
    ...otherwise. However, the federal court will not expand state law beyond its presently existing boundaries.” Barfield v. Madison County, 212 F.3d 269, 271-72 (5th Cir.2000); see C.I.R. v. Bosch's Estate, 387 U.S. 456, 464-65, 87 S.Ct. 1776, 18 L.Ed.2d 886 (1967). Here, there is no case law fr......
  • Golden Spread Coop., Inc. v. Emerson Process Mgmt., 5:17-CV-069-D
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas
    • January 31, 2019
    ...by the state's highest court." Shaken v. ADT Sec. Servs., Inc. , 816 F.3d 283, 290 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Barfield v. Madison Cty. , 212 F.3d 269, 271–72 (5th Cir. 2000) ). Where no final disposition is directly on point, federal courts "must make an ‘ Erie -guess’ , predicting how that c......
  • Gomez v. Niemann & Heyer, L. L.P.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • June 24, 2016
    ...the rules of decision, this Court is bound to apply the law as interpreted by the state's highest court. Barfield v. Madison Cnty., Miss., 212 F.3d 269, 271-72 (5th Cir. 2000). If the state's highest court has not definitively ruled on the issue in question, "it is the duty of the federal c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2014 Part VIII. Selected litigation issues
    • August 16, 2014
    ...English Pub, Inc. , 597 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 1979), §9:1.D.1 Barfield v. Madison County, Miss. , 984 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Miss. 1997), rev’d , 212 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2000), §9:3.H.2 Barfield v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. , 537 F.3d 132 (2d. Cir. 2008), §1:8.C.4 Barker v. Brown , 7......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 2 - 2016 Part VIII. Selected Litigation Issues
    • July 27, 2016
    ...English Pub, Inc. , 597 F.2d 464 (5th Cir. 1979), §9:1.D.1 Barfield v. Madison County, Miss. , 984 F. Supp. 491 (S.D. Miss. 1997), rev’d , 212 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 2000), §9:3.H.2 Barfield v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. , 537 F.3d 132 (2d. Cir. 2008), §1:8.C.4 Barker v. Brown , 7......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT