Stanley v. McDaniel, 25324.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Citation134 Idaho 630,7 P.3d 1107
Docket NumberNo. 25324.,25324.
PartiesJohn S. STANLEY and Lynn M. Stanley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Rob McDANIEL, individually and in his agency capacity, and John H. Harland Company, Defendants-Respondents.
Decision Date01 August 2000

7 P.3d 1107
134 Idaho 630

John S. STANLEY and Lynn M. Stanley, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Rob McDANIEL, individually and in his agency capacity, and John H. Harland Company, Defendants-Respondents

No. 25324.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2000 Term.

August 1, 2000.


7 P.3d 1108
Lojek & Strother, Chtd., Boise, for appellant. Donald W. Lojek argued

Eberle, Berlin, Kadin, Turnbow, McKlveen, Chtd., for respondents. Warren E. Jones argued.

SCHROEDER, Justice.

John S. Stanley and Lynn Stanley (Stanley) appeal from a decision of the district court denying a motion for interest on an award of attorney fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in an unpublished opinion. This is the matter before the Court on Stanley's petition for review.

I.

BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

The background and prior proceedings were summarized by the Court of Appeals as follows:

On December 1, 1993, John and Lynn Stanley, husband and wife, filed a complaint against John Stanley's former supervisor, Rob McDaniel, and his former employer, John Harland Company. The complaint alleged breach of an employment contract, including the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the tort of outrageous conduct, and retaliatory discharge in violation of FLSA.
On November 23, 1994, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to the respondents and dismissed with prejudice all claims except John Stanley's cause of action alleging retaliatory discharge under FLSA. A jury trial was held and the jury returned a verdict awarding $15,208.30 in damages to the Stanleys, which the court doubled pursuant to the liquidated damages provision of FLSA. Stanley sought his attorney fees and costs as authorized by the statute 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Although Stanley requested $43,527.50 in fees and $3,620.25 in costs, the district court only awarded $15,208.30 in fees and $2,265.29 in costs.
In the first appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the district court did not properly calculate attorney fees and costs and the case was remanded for recalculation. Stanley v. McDaniel, 128 Idaho 343, 913 P.2d 76 (Ct.App.1996). On remand, the district court recalculated the fees and awarded $15,208.30, the identical amount it had awarded in the first instance. Stanley appealed a second time. In an unpublished
7 P.3d 1109
opinion, the court of appeals held that the district court erred in calculating the "lodestar" because the court made improper deductions from the number of hours submitted by Stanley's counsel. Stanley v. McDaniel, 131 Idaho 136, 953 P.2d 220 (Ct.App.1997) (Stanley II). The Court of Appeals calculated the amount of attorney fees to be awarded to Stanley, taking into account those adjustments properly made by the district court. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's order and remanded for the entry of an award of attorney fees to Stanley in the amount of $31,180.
On remand, the district court entered an order awarding attorney fees to Stanley in the amount of $31,180. Stanley moved for an amended judgment, requesting post-judgment interest on the award of attorney fees from the date of the original judgment. The district court denied Stanley's motion.

Stanley appealed the district court's decision and the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying Stanley's motion seeking interest on the award of attorney fees from the date of the original judgment. This Court granted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Electrical Wholesale Supply Co. v. Nielson, 25807.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 31, 2001
    ...with the abiding belief that the appeal was "brought or pursued frivolously, unreasonably, and without foundation." Stanley v. McDaniel, 134 Idaho 630, 7 P.3d 1107 (2000) (citing Anson v. Les Bois Race Track, Inc., 130 Idaho 303, 305, 939 P.2d 1382, 1384 (1997)); I.C. § 12-121. Where an app......
  • N. Idaho Bldg. Contractors Ass'n, an Idaho Non-Profit Corp. v. City of Hayden, Docket No. 45181
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 28, 2018
    ...Stanley v. McDaniel , this Court addressed whether state or federal law applied to a federal law claim brought in state court. 134 Idaho 630, 7 P.3d 1107 (2000). We recognized that procedural matters are governed by Idaho law even if the claim was made under federal law, whereas Idaho court......
  • N. Idaho Bldg. Contractors Ass'n v. City of Hayden, Docket No. 45181
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • December 28, 2018
    ...Stanley v. McDaniel , this Court addressed whether state or federal law applied to a federal law claim brought in state court. 134 Idaho 630, 7 P.3d 1107 (2000). We recognized that procedural matters are governed by Idaho law even if the claim was made under federal law, whereas Idaho court......
  • Lockley v. CSX Transp. Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 8, 2013
    ...brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act), affirmed,217 Ill.2d 101, 298 Ill.Dec. 1, 838 N.E.2d 894 (2005); Stanley v. McDaniel, 134 Idaho 630, 7 P.3d 1107, 1109 (2000) (concluding Idaho law rather than federal law controls when determining when post-judgment interest begins to acc......
  • 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