Tampa Bay Publications, Inc. v. Watkins
| Decision Date | 29 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-03197,88-03197 |
| Parties | 29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 869, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2302 TAMPA BAY PUBLICATIONS, INC., a/k/a Tampa Bay/The Suncoast's Magazine, Appellant, v. Ginger WATKINS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William W. Wilhelm, Clearwater, for appellant.
James B. Loper of James B. Loper, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
Tampa Bay Publications (Tampa Bay) challenges a final judgment which awarded $9,375.00 in attorney fees under section 448.08, Florida Statutes (1987), to Ginger Watkins in her lawsuit against Tampa Bay for unpaid wages.
Watkins sued Tampa Bay for its failure to pay her commissions on advertising she sold for the Tampa Bay magazine. In her complaint, Watkins demanded a reasonable attorney's fee under section 448.08. That section provides: "[t]he court may award to the prevailing party in an action for unpaid wages costs of the action and a reasonable attorney's fee."
When Watkins retained her attorney to litigate the case on her behalf she entered into an agreement which provided for the payment of his fees on a contingency basis. However, the agreement also provided:
[S]hould the attorney's fees paid by the person, firm, corporation or party liable as a result of settlement or the court-awarded attorney's fees exceed the percentage fee, such settlement fee or court-awarded fee shall be the attorney fee. In other words, the attorney's fee shall be the greater of the percentage fee and the fee paid by the person, firm, corporation or party liable. Nothing herein shall limit the fee paid by the person, firm, corporation or party liable to the above percentages.
The parties settled the case before trial for unpaid wages of $5,000.00, costs of $814.88 plus an attorney's fee. The parties did not stipulate to the amount of the attorney's fee, but agreed the court should determine the amount to be paid to Watkins' counsel.
At the attorney's fee hearing, Watkins' counsel submitted evidence that he expended 50.80 hours on the case at a rate of $125.00 per hour, for a fee of $6,350.00. He also submitted an affidavit of another attorney which stated the reasonable number of hours expended in the case were 60.0 at the prevailing rate of $150.00 per hour, which should be enhanced by a multiplier of 1.5 for a total attorney's fee of $13,550.00. Tampa Bay's expert opined that 36.4 hours were necessary at a rate of $125.00 per hour for a total fee of $4,550.00. At the hearing, Tampa Bay's counsel argued that the fee awarded to Watkins' counsel could not exceed the amount provided for within his fee agreement with Watkins. Tampa Bay argued that the agreement provided for a contingent fee of 40% of the $5,000.00 recovery, which is $2000.00. On a hourly basis, the $2,000.00 fee would amount to compensation of $40.00 per hour.
The trial court ruled that Watkins was entitled to an attorney fee award under section 448.08. The court then found that Watkins' counsel reasonably expended fifty hours on the case, that the prevailing market rate was $125.00 per hour, and that the contingency risk multiplier was 1.5, for a total fee of $9,375.00. On appeal, Tampa Bay argues that the court's ruling violates the dictates of Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla.1985), in that the court-awarded fee exceeds the fee agreement reached by Watkins and her counsel. We disagree and affirm.
In Rowe, 472 So.2d at 1151, our supreme court discussed the contingency risk factor and its importance in personal injury cases. The court stated "in no case should the court-awarded fee exceed the fee agreement reached by the attorney and his client." Id. In Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Moxley, 545 So.2d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), the fee agreement between the plaintiffs and their counsel was similar to the agreement in this case; the attorney fee was to be either a percentage of the recovery or the court-awarded reasonable fee, whichever was greater. The court reasoned that such a contract did not violate Rowe because a reasonable fee does not expose the party required to pay to being victimized by having to pay an excessive fee, which was the possible harm envisioned in Rowe. We adopt the reasoning in Moxley and agree that where there is an alternative fee recovery clause in the fee agreement the trial court may determine what is the reasonable fee using the factors set forth in Rowe. See also State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 524 So.2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Baptist Church of Cape Coral, Fla., Inc. v. Compass Constr., Inc.
...will result in the nonprevailing party paying an unreasonable fee. See Moxley, 557 So.2d at 864;see also Tampa Bay Publ'ns, Inc. v. Watkins, 549 So.2d 745, 746–47 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“adopt[ing] the reasoning in Moxley ” that an alternative fee recovery clause does “not violate Rowe because......
-
Seamands v. Sears Holding Corp.
...status under § 448.08 to an employee who settled her claim for unpaid wages prior to trial. See Tampa Bay Publications, Inc. v. Watkins, 549 So. 2d 745, 746-47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1989). Second, even assuming Florida law required that a prevailing party obtain an "affirmative judgment, " t......
-
Ruffa v. Saftpay, Inc.
...vests with the trial court the ultimate discretion as to whether attorney's fees should be awarded.”); Tampa Bay Publ'ns, Inc. v. Watkins, 549 So.2d 745, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (“[S]ection 448.08 does not require the trial court to impose [attorney's] fees on the successful employee in all ......
-
Hingson v. Mmi of Florida, Inc.
...to equalize the disparate positions of employees in attempting to collect for the fruits of their labors." Tampa Bay Publ'ns, Inc. v. Watkins, 549 So.2d 745, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The fact that Hingson did not recover all the commissions she sought does not alter her status as prevailing ......