Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L.

Citation560 F.3d 1241
Decision Date03 March 2009
Docket NumberNo. 08-10848.,08-10848.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
PartiesChristine SAHYERS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, v. PRUGH, HOLLIDAY & KARATINOS, P.L., a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, Timothy F. Prugh, James W. Holliday, II, Defendants-Appellees, Theodore E. Karatinos, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Hearing, P.A., Tampa, FL, Nicholas E. Karatinos, Lutz, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Sam J. Smith, Burr & Smith, LLP, Tampa, FL, for Amicus Curiae.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, and RYSKAMP,* District Judge.

EDMONDSON, Chief Judge:

This appeal is about the power of a district court to supervise the work of the lawyers who practice before it. Christine Sahyers (Plaintiff) appeals a district court order denying her request for attorney's fees and costs in her lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219. We affirm the order.

Background

Plaintiff worked as a paralegal at the law firm Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L. After she left the firm, she retained her own lawyer. Then she sued Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L. and its named partners (Defendants) for alleged violations of the overtime provisions of the FLSA; she claimed that she was not paid appropriately—at a rate at least 1.5 times her straight-time rate—for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Before filing the suit, Plaintiff made no written demand for payment on Defendants; and her lawyer—before filing the complaint— made no attempt to inform Defendants of her claim or to collect any of the allegedly outstanding sums from them. Plaintiff had instructed her lawyer just to file suit, which he did. Defendants timely answered the complaint and denied all liability.

The complaint set forth only a generic request for damages: no specific dollar amount was demanded. So Defendants served discovery on Plaintiff that asked her to disclose the total number of overtime hours she allegedly worked without sufficient pay and all evidence supporting that calculation. Plaintiff, however, objected to those requests and repeated that she worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek and wanted payment for it. Defendants also engaged in settlement discussions. But those talks proved unhelpful, as Plaintiff asked for significant money damages1 without offering proof of the amount Defendants actually owed to her.

Sometime after discovery closed, Defendants tendered an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 for $3,500 plus any attorney's fees and costs to which the district court determined Plaintiff was entitled. Defendants denied all liability in the Rule 68 offer.2 Plaintiff accepted the Rule 68 offer. The district court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and afforded her an opportunity to file a motion for attorney's fees and costs.

Plaintiff, through her lawyer, timely moved for her litigation expenses. She asked the district court to award her $13,800 in attorney's fees and $1,840.70 in costs. Defendants objected.

On its own initiative, the district court scheduled oral argument on the issue. At that hearing, the district court asked Plaintiff's lawyer, among other things, to respond to Defendants' contention that he afforded Defendants no notice of Plaintiff's claim before filing suit. Plaintiff's lawyer admitted that the allegation was true. The lawyer's sole explanation was that he was only following the instructions of his client. After reviewing the parties' briefs and hearing oral argument (allowing the district court to interrogate Plaintiff's lawyer and to observe his demeanor), the district court concluded that Plaintiff had prevailed in the civil action. But the district court denied attorney's fees and costs. The district court wrote that "there are some cases in which a reasonable fee is no fee" and found that this case was such a case. This appeal followed.

Standard of Review

We review the issuance of sanctions and the denial of a request for attorney's fees and costs for abuse of discretion. Mut. Serv. Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., Inc., 358 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir.2004); Johnson v. Florida, 348 F.3d 1334, 1350 (11th Cir. 2003).

Discussion

In general, a prevailing FLSA plaintiff is entitled to an award of some reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b); Dale v. Comcast Corp., 498 F.3d 1216, 1223 n. 12 (11th Cir.2007); Kreager v. Solomon & Flanagan, P.A., 775 F.2d 1541, 1542 (11th Cir.1985). But the district court treated this case as an exception to that rule by finding that a reasonable fee and cost award here was zero. The district court, in substance, based this exception on its inherent powers to supervise the conduct of the lawyers who come before it and to keep in proper condition the legal community of which the courts are a leading part. Plaintiff criticizes this decision as an abuse of discretion. We disagree.3

That federal courts are accorded certain inherent powers is well-established. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 2132, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). Those powers are not governed by rule or by statute, "but by the control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases." Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 82 S.Ct. 1386, 1389, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962). Because of the potency of those powers, they must be "exercised with restraint and discretion." Chambers, 111 S.Ct. at 2132.

A federal court may wield its inherent powers over the lawyers who practice before it. This control derives from a lawyer's role as an officer of the court.4 Theard v. United States, 354 U.S. 278, 77 S.Ct. 1274, 1276, 1 L.Ed.2d 1342 (1957). It encompasses, among other things, the authority to police lawyer conduct and to guard and to promote civility and collegiality among the members of its bar.5 See, e.g., Chambers, 111 S.Ct. at 2132 ("[A] federal court has the power to control admission to its bar and to discipline attorneys who appear before it."); In re Finkelstein, 901 F.2d 1560, 1564 (11th Cir.1990) (court has power to supervise professional conduct of lawyers who practice before it).

In exercising its powers, a court need not free a client from the acts of his lawyer, especially when the client is aware of or directs those acts. See Jochum v. Schmidt, 570 F.2d 1229, 1232 n. 5 (5th Cir.1978) ("[F]ailing to impose sanctions [] merely because the plaintiff should not be penalized for the omissions of his own attorney would be visiting the sins of the plaintiff's lawyer on the defendant.") (internal quotation marks omitted); Anderson v. United Parcel Serv., 915 F.2d 313, 316 (7th Cir.1990) ("There is no injustice in holding a client responsible for acts of his attorney of which he is aware."). A court, therefore, may deny an award of litigation expenses to which a client is otherwise entitled. See Litton Sys., Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 700 F.2d 785, 827-28 (2d Cir.1983).

The district court's inherent powers support its decision here.6 Defendants are lawyers and their law firm. And the lawyer for Plaintiff made absolutely no effort—no phone call; no email; no letter —to inform them of Plaintiff's impending claim much less to resolve this dispute before filing suit. Plaintiff's lawyer slavishly followed his client's instructions and—without a word to Defendants in advance —just sued his fellow lawyers.7 As the district court saw it, this conscious disregard for lawyer-to-lawyer collegiality and civility caused (among other things) the judiciary to waste significant time and resources on unnecessary litigation and stood in stark contrast to the behavior expected of an officer of the court.8 The district court refused to reward—and thereby to encourage—uncivil conduct by awarding Plaintiff attorney's fees or costs. Given the district court's power of oversight for the bar, we cannot say that this decision was outside of the bounds of the district court's discretion.9

We strongly caution against inferring too much from our decision today. These kinds of decisions are fact-intensive. We put aside cases in which lawyers are not parties. We do not say that pre-suit notice is usually required or even often required under the FLSA to receive an award of attorney's fees or costs. Nor do we now recommend that courts use their inherent powers to deny prevailing parties attorney's fees or costs. We declare no judicial duty. We create no presumptions. We conclude only that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award some attorney's fees and costs based on the facts of this case.

Conclusion

We affirm the order of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

* Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

1. The parties dispute the amount of Plaintiff's lowest settlement demand. Defendants contend that it was $35,000, while Plaintiff believes it was around $25,000. In either case, the demand was far in excess of the final settlement amount.

2. The Rule 68 offer contained this language: "This Offer does not in any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • R-BOC Representatives, Inc. v. Minemyer
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • February 10, 2017
    ......1386, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962) ; Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L. 560 F.3d 1241, 1245 ......
  • Glenwood Farms, Inc. v. O'Connor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • October 14, 2009
    ...... to its control." (internal quotation omitted)); Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L., 560 F.3d 1241, 1245 ......
  • Dees v. Hydradry Inc, Case No. 8:09-cv-1405-T-23TBM.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • April 19, 2010
    ......         10. In . Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L., 560 F.3d 1241 (11th ......
  • Envtl. Mfg. Solutions, LLC v. Peach State Labs, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • August 11, 2017
    ...Authority"That federal courts are accorded certain inherent powers is well-established." Sahyers v. Prugh, Holliday & Karatinos, P.L., 560 F.3d 1241, 1244 (11th Cir. 2009)."Those powers are not governed by rule or by statute, 'but by the control 274 F.Supp.3d 1315necessarily vested in court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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