Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00988/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00988-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bonnie Riendeau, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Apache Carson Partners LP, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-00988-PHX-FJM

ORDER

We have before us the parties’ joint motion to approve a settlement agreement (doc.

76), and the parties’ joint memorandum in support of the reasonableness of attorney’s fees

(doc. 78). The proposed settlement agreement provides for a total of $83,000 in damages and

$113,000 in attorney’s fees. We requested additional briefing on the reasonableness of the

fee request given the disparity between the damages awarded to the plaintiffs’ class and class

counsel’s requested compensation. Class counsel contends that the fee request was

calculated using the lodestar method, because a “percentage of recovery” calculation would

not produce a reasonable fee given the relatively small class recovery. 

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides for a mandatory award of reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs to encourage private litigants to act as “private attorneys general”

to enforce FLSA standards. Although a disparity between the value of the class recovery and

class counsel’s compensation raises “at least an inference of unfairness,” In re Bluetooth

Case 2:12-cv-00988-FJM Document 79 Filed 12/19/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Headset Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935, 938 (9th Cir. 2011), such an award is not per se

unreasonable. See City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, 574, 106 S. Ct. 2686, 2694

(1986) (rejecting the argument that fee awards under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 must be proportionate

to the plaintiff’s damages). 

In applying a lodestar calculation, we consider “the number of hours reasonably

expended on the ligation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461

U.S. 424, 434, 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1939 (1983). Lead counsel Pruitt’s hourly rate is $300.00,

associate counsel Hill’s hourly rate is $195.00, and paralegal Fairbanks’ hourly rate is

$125.00. We consider these rates to be reasonable in the Phoenix market given the expertise

of counsel. 

Counsel expended 836.5 hours on this case, for total fees of $134,967.00, and

$7,114.21 in costs. We think this is excessive. Reviewing the billing detail, we note that an

inordinate number of hours was spent by paralegal Fairbanks drafting the complaint,

effecting service of process, drafting discovery requests and initial disclosures, drafting the

motion for class certification and mediation memorandum, and preparing a spreadsheet of

damages. Although plaintiffs will receive all or more than their damage estimates, thereby

obtaining excellent results, lawyers have a professional obligation to consider the amount of

a potential recovery in relation to the amount of time and effort expended on a case. The

expenditure of 836.5 hours of legal work on a relatively simple case that was settled before

dispositive motions were filed is excessive. 

Therefore, we reduce by half the number of hours billed by paralegal Fairbanks, for

a reduction of $38,475.00. We note that class counsel has already agreed to reduce their fee

request by $29,081.00. Therefore, we reduce the requested fees by an additional $9,394.00.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING IN PART plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees (doc.

76) and awarding fees and costs in the amount of $103,606.00. As amended, IT IS

ORDERED GRANTING the joint motion to approve settlement (doc. 76). It is further 

Case 2:12-cv-00988-FJM Document 79 Filed 12/19/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

ORDERED DISMISSING this action with prejudice, with each party to bear its fees and

costs except as provided in this order. 

DATED this 19th day of December, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-00988-FJM Document 79 Filed 12/19/13 Page 3 of 3