The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1238

___________

Mark R. Treece, and Others Similarly *

Situated; Robert Wortham; David *

Goodson; Jerry W. Best; Tom *

Frederick; Donald C. McElhaney; *

D. W. Miller; Dennis L. Hutchins, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellants, * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

City of Little Rock, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: January 7, 1998

 Filed: February 19, 1998

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After partially prevailing in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act

(FLSA), six police officers appeal from an order of the United States District Court for 1
-2-

the Eastern District of Arkansas granting a reduced award of attorney&s fees and costs.

For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

After the district court entered judgment upon the jury&s verdict and awarded

appellants a total of $42,461.76 in damages, appellants submitted affidavits from their

three New York attorneys and their local counsel seeking a total of $178,221.25 in

attorney&s fees and $20,166.65 in costs. After concluding that both the hourly rate and

the amount of time expended were excessive, and further reducing the lodestar in light

of the partial success on the merits, the district court awarded appellants $27,500 in

attorney&s fees and $7,500 in costs. Appellants appeal only the attorney&s fee award.

The FLSA provides that “the court . . . 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.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The district court has the

discretion to determine the amount of the fees and costs, and we review the exercise

of that discretion for abuse. See Bankston v. Illinois, 60 F.3d 1249, 1255 (7th Cir.

1995).

In calculating reasonable attorney&s fees, the district court is to consider several

factors in determining the lodestar amount (the reasonable number of hours worked

multiplied by the market rate), and in considering adjustments to the total fee award.

See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983); Zoll v. Eastern Allamakee

Community Sch. Dist., 588 F.2d 246, 252 & n.11 (8th Cir. 1978) (listing factors).

By considering the number of attorneys involved in presenting plaintiffs& cases,

the lack of complexity of issues, and the similarity of plaintiffs& individual claims--all

of which are appropriate factors to consider--the district court did not abuse its

discretion in reducing the requested lodestar amount. Although the district court did

not specifically address fees for the paralegal, we assume any fees the district court

deemed appropriate were included in the lump sum award, and we find no abuse of
-3-

discretion. We also conclude the district court was within its discretion in reducing the

award based on the limited success achieved. See H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925 F.2d

257, 260 (8th Cir. 1991) (district court&s 50% reduction in lodestar based on limited

results obtained not abuse of discretion). Finally, appellants are not entitled to fees for

this appeal as they are not prevailing parties.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.