Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_03-cv-00463/USCOURTS-alnd-2_03-cv-00463-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:201 Denial of Overtime Compensation

---

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRANDI BOSCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

TITLE MAX OF ALABAMA, INC.,

Defendant.

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

}

CIVIL ACTION NO.

03-AR-0463-S

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The above-entitled FLSA wage case was ostensibly settled on

May 4, 2005. At that time plaintiff, Brandi Bosch, accepted the

Rule 68 offer made by defendant, Title Max of Alabama, Inc., in the

sum of $5,104.32, expressly leaving to the court the hard job of

fixing any attorney’s fee and expenses to which she may be

entitled. Predictably, there is a drastic difference of opinion

between plaintiff and defendant over the amount to be awarded. The

level of disagreement over plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and expenses

equals or exceeds the level of disagreement over the disputed wages

themselves. In her post-judgment petition for attorneys’ fees and

expenses, plaintiff claims $38,337.98. Defendant challenges the

reasonableness of the hourly rate of $275.00 sought by plaintiff’s

lawyer, challenges the reasonableness of, and the necessity for,

the lawyer-hours spent, wants to eliminate the lawyer time spent on

the unsuccessful aspects of the case, and points to the giant

disparity between the modest amount actually recovered and the

attorneys’ fees and expenses sought. Defendant has offered no

FILED

 2005 Jun-15 AM 09:38

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:03-cv-00463-WMA Document 112 Filed 06/15/05 Page 1 of 4
2

evidence of what constitutes a reasonable hourly rate for

plaintiff’s attorney, and has made no suggestion as to the actual

amount to which plaintiff is entitled. If defendant believes that

plaintiff is entitled to no attorney’s fee whatsoever, it has not

made itself clear on that point. It certainly has not justified

any such position, choosing, instead, to rely on plaintiff’s

alleged failure to meet the burden of proof on this issue. 

The court could, as it has done in a very few other instances,

write a lengthy analysis of the evidence bearing on the prevailing

plaintiff’s right to attorneys’ fees and expenses, and could

discuss the law on the subject as it has evolved within the

Eleventh Circuit. At times the Eleventh Circuit has been demanding

of trial courts as to the detail they must give in fixing

attorneys’ fees. At other times the Eleventh Circuit has

recognized that trial judges are entitled to exercise a

considerable breadth of judgment on the issue without having to

write an exhaustive opinion examining each and every lawyer-hour

spent and all possible discrete factors except the lodestar. The

court thinks a publishable opinion, garnished with footnotes, is

not justified in this case. The court, rather, concludes that a

reasonable hourly rate for plaintiff’s attorney in this case was

$200.00. This conclusion is based largely on the court’s personal

familiarity with this type of case and the fees reasonably to be

anticipated and actually awarded. The court also concludes that a

Case 2:03-cv-00463-WMA Document 112 Filed 06/15/05 Page 2 of 4
3

substantial portion of the lawyer-hours spent in this case by

plaintiff’s lawyer were unproductive, even though in some ways

justified as probing operations. Lastly, the court concludes that

only expenses of $7,500.00 were reasonably spent. In final

analysis, the court finds that the lodestar approach is the only

approach here appropriate. The court is not in a position to

judge, post hoc, exactly which depositions and which pleadings were

appropriate. 

When defendant formally offered to pay, in addition to

$5,104.32 in wages, whatever is to be awarded by the court as an

attorney’s fee under the fee shifting statute here applicable,

defendant gave up its opportunity to include what it thought was a

reasonable attorney’s fee in its Rule 68 offer. With its

experience, defendant had no reason to be surprised when the

plaintiff’s attorney’s fee substantially exceeds what the plaintiff

received. Furthermore, defendant is lucky that plaintiff’s

attorney did not engage in the rancorous, and time consuming, and

all too usual tactic of exploring defendant’s lawyer-hours and

hourly rates. 

Considering all factors, the court finds that a reasonable

attorney’s fee and expenses for plaintiff’s attorney in this case

is $24,000.00.

An appropriate separate order will be entered.

Case 2:03-cv-00463-WMA Document 112 Filed 06/15/05 Page 3 of 4
4

DONE this 15th day of June, 2005.

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. ACKER, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00463-WMA Document 112 Filed 06/15/05 Page 4 of 4