King v. McCord, 82-7131
| Decision Date | 13 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-7131,82-7131 |
| Parties | 35 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 831, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,669, 97 Lab.Cas. P 34,392 Jewel KING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Shirley S. McCORD, individually and d/b/a McCord's Grocery, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Susan Williams Reeves, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
Kullman, Lang, Inman & Bee, Henry T. Arrington, New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before RONEY and CLARK, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
This case comes to us again on the single issue of the propriety of the attorney's fees award. On the prior appeal, which also involved only the amount of the attorney's fees, we were faced with an award of $2,000 with no explanation as to how that figure was determined. We remanded the case to the district court with instructions to "(1) hold an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual disputes and allow appellants the opportunity to supplement the affidavits previously submitted, (2) recalculate the award in conformity with Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. and this opinion, and (3) itemize the recalculated amount specifying the costs, expenses, and attorney's fees." King v. McCord, 621 F.2d 205, 207 (5th Cir.1980). 1
All that was ordered has now been done. After a full hearing, the district court in a very explicit and detailed order awarded $11,954.94 in fees and $6,963.17 in expenses. Plaintiff contends that the district court erred by not giving proper weight to the contingent nature and the undesirability of the case, by delaying its decision without any consideration of compensating for the delay in payment by awarding interest, by not using current rates, and by reducing the number of compensable hours. In spite of the validity of some of the points made by plaintiff, we can not reverse the decision of the district judge under the abuse of discretion standard of review.
The controlling factors, in our judgment, are that the plaintiff is not entitled to attorney's fees for the time spent on claims unsuccessfully asserted in this litigation and relationship of the fee to the amount of recovery obtained. Hensley v. Eckerhart, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 75 L.Ed.2d ---- (1983). Plaintiff was employed for ten years by a grocery store, one of five owned by the individual proprietor defendant. Plaintiff asserted two claims which she lost: a discriminatory failure to promote and a discriminatory failure to rehire, both under Title VII. She alleged and proved a claim under the Equal Pay Act that she had been denied pay, on the basis of her sex, when she performed the job of higher-paid male managers. She was awarded compensatory and liquidated damages in the amount of $6,504.60. No injunctive relief was obtained. This was not a class action. There is no indication that any significant legal precedent was set or that anyone other than plaintiff benefited from the efforts of counsel.
In a detailed order, the district court determined that the defendant was not liable for the attorney's time in working on the unsuccessful claims. Although the issue is not without dispute, the district court properly applied the law in this Circuit. Familias Unidas v. Briscoe, 619 F.2d 391, 406 (5th Cir.1980); Hardy v. Porter, 613 F.2d 112, 114 (5th Cir.1980). The claims on which plaintiff did not prevail were not sufficiently intertwined with the successful claim as to require compensation. See Morgado v. Birmingham-Jefferson County Civil Defense Corps, 706 F.2d 1184, 1193-1194, (11th Cir.1983).
Having decided that issue, the district court then stated that "a review of the trial record, as well as a review of the submissions of counsel, indicates that preparation for the issue upon which the plaintiff prevailed was equal to 70/191 of the total preparation by counsel." It then took the precise hours asserted by counsel and calculated the reduction. The court properly allowed the hours spent seeking attorney's fees. Johnson v. Mississippi, 606 F.2d 635 (5th Cir.1979).
In a case where part of the attorney's efforts are to go uncompensated, the burden is on the attorney to provide sufficient evidence for the court to make a correct division. National Association of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense, 675 F.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Valley v. Ocean Sky Limo
...if there is a reason for rejecting it.” Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1137 (11th Cir.1984) (citing King v. McCord, 707 F.2d 466, 468 (11th Cir.1983) ). The court itself is considered to be an expert “and may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonabl......
-
Norman v. Housing Authority of City of Montgomery, 87-7763
...Green, 112 F.2d 143, 144 (5th Cir.1940) (Sibley, J.). Accord, NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d at 1334; King v. McCord, 707 F.2d 466, 468 (11th Cir.1983) (King v. McCord II ); Mesa Petroleum Company v. Coniglio, 629 F.2d 1022, 1030 (5th Cir.1980); Brown v. Culpepper, 561 F.2d 1177, 1177......
-
Loranger v. Stierheim
...and non-compensable hours, the district court should require the party seeking fees to refashion its request. See King v. McCord, 707 F.2d 466, 468 (11th Cir.1983) (burden on party seeking fees to provide sufficient evidence for party to make correct division). Thus, rather that simply slas......
-
Loranger v. Stierheim
...court to make a correct division.' " Carmichael v. Birmingham Saw Works, 738 F.2d 1126, 1139 (11th Cir.1984) (quoting King v. McCord, 707 F.2d 466, 468 (11th Cir.1983)). Ray does not contend that he has submitted his fee request in a form which would enable the district court to determine h......