In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 18-3571

TIMOTHY J. FAST,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CASH DEPOT, LTD.,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 16-CV-1637 — William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge.

____________________

ARGUED MAY 14, 2019 — DECIDED JULY 30, 2019

____________________

Before FLAUM, KANNE, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.

KANNE, Circuit Judge. Cash Depot underpaid employees 

for their overtime work. Timothy Fast, a former employee, 

filed this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf 

of himself and other Cash Depot employees. In response, 

Cash Depot hired an accountant to investigate the matter and 

subsequently issued checks to all underpaid current and former employees covered by the suit. The company also issued 
2 No. 18-3571

checks to Fast for his underpaid wages, an amount for liquidated damages under the FLSA, and the amount of Fast’s disclosed attorney fees to that point in the litigation. Fast and his 

attorney never cashed their checks.

Cash Depot then moved to dismiss the suit as moot or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The district court denied 

the motion to dismiss because Fast contested whether Cash 

Depot correctly calculated the amount it owed him and other 

employees. However, the court granted partial summary 

judgment for Cash Depot, “to the extent that [it] correctly calculated” what it owed Fast. Eventually Fast’s attorney conceded that Cash Depot correctly paid the missing wages and 

urged that only a dispute over additional attorney fees remained.

After Fast’s demand for additional attorney fees went unanswered, he filed a motion for attorney fees. Cash Depot responded in kind with a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a 

motion for summary judgment. The court determined that because Fast was not a prevailing party for the purposes of the 

FLSA, he was not entitled to attorney fees, and granted Cash 

Depot’s motion for summary judgment. Fast appeals, arguing 

that he was a prevailing party and is entitled to reasonable 

attorney fees. But because he never received a favorable judgment, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Cash Depot maintains and services ATMs in the Green 

Bay, Wisconsin area. Timothy Fast, a former service technician, believed that Cash Depot underpaid him by failing to 

count certain non-discretionary bonuses and other payments 

in his base pay when the company calculated his overtime 
No. 18-3571 3

pay. He brought this suit against Cash Depot on behalf of 

himself and all similarly situated service technicians in the 

Eastern District of Wisconsin, alleging that Cash Depot’s failure to pay the proper overtime amounts violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 203 et seq.

Shortly after filing suit and exchanging initial discovery, 

Cash Depot determined that the cost of defending a class action suit would likely outweigh the class members’ potential 

damages. To assess whether it had underpaid its employees, 

Cash Depot hired an accounting firm that ultimately confirmed that the company miscalculated overtime pay. The accounting firm tallied Cash Depot’s cumulative underpayments at less than $22,000.

Cash Depot then issued checks to all its current and former

employees covered by the suit for the amounts the company 

underpaid them individually. The company’s counsel also 

mailed a letter and check for $338.98 to Fast’s counsel to compensate Fast for his underpaid wages and liquidated damages 

provided under the FLSA. The letter informed Fast that Cash 

Depot also intended to compensate him for all reasonable attorney fees incurred up to that point in the litigation. In its 

early discovery correspondence with Fast, Cash Depot requested the amount of legal fees Fast’s counsel had incurred 

so far. Relying on a discovery disclosure made by Fast’s counsel, Cash Depot sent Fast’s counsel a check for $13,333.35 to 

cover attorney fees and costs. Neither Fast nor his counsel

cashed their checks.

Cash Depot then filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot 

because it paid Fast and all other members of the putative 

class in full. It also filed, in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment that asked the district court to establish that 
4 No. 18-3571

it only owed Fast $380.76 in underpaid wages, his costs, and 

his reasonable attorney fees. The district court denied Cash 

Depot’s motion to dismiss, noting that as a representative for 

the putative class, Fast had a right to avoid a forced settlement 

and to refuse to accept the money. However, the district court 

partially granted Cash Depot’s motion for summary judgment as to the amount of Fast’s damages (to the extent that 

Cash Depot made correct calculations). Cash Depot had provided its calculations of the amount it underpaid Fast to his 

counsel and to the court, but Fast’s counsel claimed that he

believed they were incorrect. Yet Fast’s counsel neither explained the basis for this belief, nor revealed his own calculations of how much Cash Depot owed. The district court noted 

that Fast had an interest in serving as a potential class representative, and therefore could avoid Cash Depot’s attempts to 

moot the case by declining to disclose the amount.

After the district court denied Cash Depot’s motion to dismiss, it lifted a stay on discovery. Cash Depot then provided 

Fast’s counsel redacted copies of its calculations and payment 

information for all its employees in December 2017, even 

though Fast still had not moved for class certification. In February 2018, Fast’s counsel finally conceded that Cash Depot 

had correctly paid all wages owed to its employees (including 

Fast) and stated that the parties only needed to reconcile the 

appropriate amount of attorney fees. By that point in the litigation, Fast’s counsel claimed that his reasonable fees had 

risen to $50,137.04. He sent e-mails to Cash Depot requesting 

an update on settling attorney fees, but Cash Depot’s counsel 

never responded. Fast eventually filed a motion for attorney 

fees on June 20, 2018. Cash Depot then filed a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment on July 25, 2018. 
No. 18-3571 5

In November 2018, the district court denied Fast’s motion 

for attorney fees and granted Cash Depot’s motion for summary judgment. In its order, the district court explained that 

§ 216(b) of the FLSA provides that an award of attorney fees 

is contingent on a favorable judgment for the plaintiff. However, looking to our decision in Palmetto Props., Inc. v. Cty. of 

DuPage, 375 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 2004), the district court determined that the Supreme Court’s Buckhannon analysis for 

“prevailing parties” in discretionary fee-shifting statutes also 

applied. The Supreme Court’s decision in Buckhannon required that a “prevailing party” under federal fee-shifting 

statutes must attain a judgment in his favor, a court-approved 

settlement, or some other favorable resolution with a “judicial 

imprimatur.” See Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 603–05 (2001). 

The district court noted that Fast received no judgment in his 

favor and that Cash Depot’s voluntary payments never received court approval. The court then determined that because Fast never moved to certify the class and because his 

counsel conceded that Cash Depot paid Fast and the putative 

class the proper amount of owed wages, a live controversy no 

longer existed. It granted summary judgment for Cash Depot 

and dismissed the case. Fast appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

In an appeal from the denial of a motion for attorney fees, 

we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo. Palmetto Props., 375 F.3d 542, 547 (7th Cir. 2004). However, we 

review any underlying factual matters for clear error. Id.

The Fair Labor Standards Act provides a right of action to 

employees whose employers violate the Act. 29 U.S.C. 

§ 216(b). Relevant to this suit, the Act provides that a “court, 
6 No. 18-3571

in [the] action shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the 

plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonable attorney’s fee to be 

paid by the defendant, and costs of the action.” Id. (emphasis 

added). Notably, the statute makes an award of fees mandatory, not discretionary.

But perhaps because we have not previously had occasion 

to address the question of attorney fee awards under the 

FLSA, the district court determined that Supreme Court precedent interpreting discretionary fee-shifting provisions in 

other statutes provided guidance here. See Buckhannon, 532 

U.S. at 601–05. In Buckhannon, the Court addressed language 

in the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which authorized courts to 

award fees—in their discretion—to a “prevailing party.” The 

Court determined that a “prevailing party” for the purpose of 

discretionary fee-shifting statutes is one who secures a “judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties.” Id. at 605. Here, the district court determined that because it denied any relief to Fast throughout the course of this 

suit, Fast was not a prevailing party under Buckhannon.

On appeal, Fast argues that even if Buckhannon guides this 

case, he is the prevailing party thanks to the district court’s 

November 2017 summary judgment order confirming that 

Cash Depot owed him wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Cash Depot believes that Fast waived 

that argument because it departs from his position at summary judgment. And even if Fast did not waive his argument, 

Cash Depot maintains that § 216(b) requires parties to obtain 

a final judgment in their favor to collect attorney fees. In light 

of the statute’s text and our precedent, we agree and do not 

consider Cash Depot’s other arguments. 
No. 18-3571 7

Neither the district court, nor the parties up to this point, 

identified our precedent that squarely addressed nearly identical mandatory fee-shifting language in another statute. In 

Franzen v. Ellis Corp., the parties feuded over the attorney fees 

provision in the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. 543 

F.3d 420 (7th Cir. 2008). That statute provides that district 

courts “shall, in addition to any judgment awarded to the 

plaintiff, allow a reasonable attorney’s fee, reasonable expert 

witness fees, and other costs of the action to be paid by the 

defendant.” 29 U.S.C. § 2617(a)(3). In Franzen, we noted that, 

“[u]nlike most other statutory fee-shifting provisions, section 

2617 [of the FMLA] requires an award of attorneys’ fees to the 

plaintiff when applicable.” 543 F.3d at 430. We also observed 

that, “the plain wording of the statute provides some limit 

on...awarding attorneys’ fees,” and that “an actual ‘judgment’ in favor of the plaintiff is a necessary triggering event 

for an award of attorneys’ fees under the FMLA.” Id. Franzen

relied on another case in which we distinguished between feeshifting statutes contingent on judgments and fee-shifting 

statutes providing awards to “prevailing parties.” See Stomper 

v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 241, 27 F.3d 316, 318 (7th 

Cir. 1994) (“[W]e conclude that the plaintiff must prevail by 

judgment in order to receive an award of attorneys’ fees. ‘[I]n 

addition to any judgment awarded to the plaintiff’ implies a 

favorable judgment.” (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 431(c))).

Therefore, by the plain language of the statute and our 

precedent addressing nearly identical statutory language, 

there is no question that the FLSA requires a favorable judgment before a plaintiff becomes entitled to attorney fees. And

Franzen addresses what constitutes a favorable “judgment” in 

these contexts. In that case, a plaintiff sued his former employer, alleging that the company interfered with his right to 
8 No. 18-3571

take post-injury leave under the FMLA. 543 F.3d at 421. The 

district court bifurcated the case into a jury trial on liability 

and a bench trial on damages. Id. At the end of trial, the jury 

returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff as to liability. Id. 

However, because the district court determined that the plaintiff failed to prove he was entitled to damages, it refused to 

award him attorney fees. Id. The plaintiff appealed, and we 

held that although he received a favorable verdict from the 

jury, the district court ultimately issued its judgment in the 

defendant’s favor, depriving the plaintiff of the right to attorney fees. Id. at 430-32. 

Although the district court’s November 2017 summary 

judgment order in Cash Depot’s favor included language stating, “summary judgment is granted to the extent that Cash 

Depot correctly calculated that it owes Fast the sum of $380.76 

in unpaid overtime plus his costs and reasonable attorneys’

fees,” the district court never entered a judgment in Fast’s favor. Here, the judgment simply states: “[i]t is hereby ordered 

and adjudged that plaintiff takes nothing and the case is dismissed.” As we said in Stomper, “a judgment reading ‘Plaintiffs shall take nothing by their complaint’ is still a judgment.” 

27 F.3d at 319. But “[t]hat is not a judgment ‘awarded to’ the 

plaintiff[]; it is a judgment suffered by the plaintiff[].” Id. 

Without a judgment in his favor, Fast’s claim for fees fails.

III. CONCLUSION

We determine that the Buckhannon “prevailing party”

analysis does not apply to claims under § 216(b) of the FLSA. 

However, because the district court never entered a favorable 

judgment for Fast, it correctly declined to award him attorney 

fees. AFFIRMED.