Brandt v. Magnificent Quality Florals Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 September 2011 |
| Docket Number | CASE NO. 07-20129-CIV-HUCK/SIMONTON |
| Parties | CARLOS BRANDT and ORESTES LOPEZ, Plaintiffs, v. MAGNIFICENT QUALITY FLORALS CORP. and MOISES SANCHEZ, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Presently pending before the Court are the Plaintiff's Verified Motion and Re-Filed Verified Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (DE ## 141, 175) as to Carlos Brandt, and the Defendants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Costs Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, or Rule 11, or 27 U.S.C. § 1927 and Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees (DE ## 137, 169). Both Parties have filed Responses (DE ## 145, 177) to the Motions and the Parties have filed their respective Replies (DE ## 146, 178).
For the following reasons, and based upon a review of the entire record, the undersigned concludes that Plaintiff Carlos Brandt is entitled to recover attorneys' fees as a prevailing plaintiff under the FLSA. However, pursuant to the cost-shifting provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, the Defendants are entitled to recover their post-offer costs from Plaintiff Brandt because the offer of judgment made by the Defendants was more favorable than the judgment obtained by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, Plaintiff Brandt's Re-Filed and Verified Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs is granted, in part. The Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of$19,123.35 and costs in the amount of $1,072.00, for a total award in fees and costs of $20,195.35. In addition, the Defendants' Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees is granted, in part, and the Defendants are awarded costs in the amount of $809.18 against Plaintiff Brandt.
Plaintiffs Carlos Brandt and Orestes Lopez filed this lawsuit against Defendants Magnificent Quality Florals Corporation ("Magnificent") and Moises Sanchez to recover overtime wages allegedly owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Both Plaintiffs were employed by Magnificent, and it was undisputed that the owner, Moises Sanchez, was individually liable as an employer.
The Plaintiffs each contended that during the course of their employment, they worked more than 40 hours weekly, but were not paid overtime in accordance with the requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants, on the other hand, contended that Plaintiff Brandt worked only nine hours of overtime for which he was not compensated; and that Plaintiff Lopez never worked overtime.
Plaintiff Brandt filed a Statement of Claim asserting that he was owed overtime compensation for an average of five hours each week for 156 weeks, and thus sought $56,160.00, including liquidated damages, but exclusive of fees and costs (DE # 5). Plaintiff Orestes Lopez indicated in the Statement of Claim that he was owed overtime compensation for an average of twelve hours each week for twenty-four weeks, and thus sought $9,141.12, including liquidated damages, but exclusive of fees and costs (DE # 5).
On June 5, 2007, Defendants made an Offer of Judgment to Plaintiff Brandt in thetotal amount of $8,000.00 (DE # 137-2 at 1-3).1 The Offer stated that the offer, if accepted, shall resolve all claims by Plaintiff Brandt against Defendants including claims for attorneys' fees and costs.2
On June 5, 2007, Defendants made an Offer of Judgment to Plaintiff Lopez in the total amount of $2,000.00 (DE # 137-2 at 4-6). The Offer stated that the offer, if accepted, shall resolve all claims by Plaintiff Lopez against Defendants including claims for attorneys' fees and costs.
The Defendants filed a Motion for Final Summary Judgment contending that there was no evidence that the Plaintiffs ever worked more than forty hours a week for the Defendants, and, additionally argued that based upon telephone records, computer activity records, and pay records, it appeared that the Plaintiffs' claims were "bogus and fraudulent." (DE # 62). In the Motion, the Defendants admitted that they did not maintain a punch-card or other time-keeping system. In response, the Plaintiffs contended thatgenuine issues of material fact remained regarding how many hours the Plaintiffs worked each week for the Defendants, and contended that the Defendants' Motion was baseless and frivolous (DE # 66). The Court denied the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment noting that, although the Defendants made a strong case that the Plaintiffs did not work any uncompensated overtime hours, the Plaintiffs had provided competent evidence that they had, in fact, worked uncompensated overtime hours (DE # 73). The Court therefore concluded that issues in dispute had to be decided by a finder of fact and not as a matter of law. The Court also determined that the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment was not frivolous.
A five-day jury trial was held on this matter between February 25, 2008, through February 29, 2008 (DE ## 93-97). The jury returned a verdict finding that Plaintiff Brandt worked a total of 18 hours of overtime, and that Plaintiff Lopez did not work any hours of overtime (DE ## 93-97, 101). According to the Verdict Form, the jury found that the Defendants owed Plaintiff Brandt $332.28 for nine hours of overtime that the Defendants admitted was worked by the Plaintiff for February 2008, and the jury further found that the Defendants owed Plaintiff Brandt an additional nine hours of overtime compensation totaling $271.98 for work performed between January 17, 2005 and October 1, 2006 (DE # 101). The jury also found that Plaintiff Brandt had failed to prove that the Defendants either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether their conduct was prohibited by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants then filed a Motion for Judgment of Dismissal and Monetary Sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 68, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, and the Court's Inherent Authority to Impose Sanctions and for Contempt Proceedings For Perjury and Suborning Perjury (DE # 117); and, a Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 11, includingDismissal with Prejudice and Attorneys' Fees and Costs (DE # 124). The Court issued an Order denying both Motions (DE # 132). The Defendants then filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order (DE # 136), that this Court also denied (DE # 147).
The Plaintiffs filed a Motion for New Trial and for Reimbursement of Fees for Trial and Trial Preparation (DE # 118). The Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion (DE # 135) and entered a final judgment in favor of the Defendants against Plaintiff Orestes Lopez, and in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Brandt against the Defendants (DE # 134). Specifically, the Final Judgment stated that final judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants against Plaintiff Orestes Lopez, and was entered in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Brandt against the Defendants in the total amount of $1,208.52, "for which execution shall issue." (DE # 134). Both Parties filed Motions seeking to recover their Attorney's Fees and Costs from the opposing Party (DE ## 137, 141).
The Plaintiffs then filed a Notice of Appeal indicating that the Plaintiffs were appealing the Final Judgment based on the Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial (DE #140). The Defendants filed a Notice of Cross-Appeal indicating that the Defendants were appealing the Orders Denying Defendants' Motions for Judgment of Dismissal and Sanctions (DE # 148).
While the cross-appeals were pending, the undersigned abated the Parties' Motions for Attorney's Fees and granted the Parties' leave to reactivate those Motions within thirty days of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of the Parties' appeals (DE # 163).
On August 17, 2010, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its Mandate on the Parties' respective appeals, and affirmed the Orders denying both the Plaintiffs' Motion for New Trial and the Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (DE # 166).
The instant Motions followed. Plaintiff has submitted a Re-Filed and Verified Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs (DE # 175) and the Defendants have submitted a Renewed Motion for Attorneys' Fees (DE # 169). Both Parties have filed Responses to the Motions and the Parties have filed their respective Replies.
Plaintiff Brandt has re-filed his Motion for Attorneys' fees requesting that he be awarded $95,272.50 for the Attorneys' Fees consisting of 314.80 hours of work performed during the trial and appeal of this matter; and, additionally indicates that he also will seek to recover his attorneys' fees for the time expended in drafting a Reply to the Motion (DE # 175 at 7).3 In support of the amount requested, Plaintiff Brandt contends that because the jury returned a verdict in his favor, and a final judgment was entered in his favor, that was affirmed on appeal, he is entitled to a mandatory recovery of attorneys' fees as a prevailing Plaintiff under the FLSA. In addition, he contends that although the attorneys' fees requested are much greater than the $1,208.52 award granted to Mr. Brandt, such attorneys' fees are nonetheless reasonable based upon the conduct of Counsel for the Defendants which "unnecessarily created far more work and sheer aggravation in this case than was warranted." (DE # 175 at 5). As part of this contention, in a footnote, Plaintiff's Counsel refers to certain statements made by Defendants' Counsel in closing argument, and further cites to an opinion issued in another FLSA case where Defendants' Counsel was found to have contributed to theacrimonious nature of the litigation (DE # 175 at 5 n 7). In addition, Plaintiff's Counsel submits that he has "pared down" the time entries requested in the Motion to reflect time spent only on Mr. Brandt's claims, or time that would have been spent on Mr. Brandt's claims irrespective of Mr. Lopez's participation in the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial