The Ho norable James Maxwell Moody, United States District Judge for th e 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Hutchins, * * Appeal from the United States Appellants, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas v. * * [UNPUBLISHED] City of Little Rock, * * Appellee.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, an d MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After partially prevailing in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Ac t (FLSA), six police officers appeal from an order of the United St ates 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. Afterthe district court entered judgment upon the jury & s verdict and awarde d appellants a total of $42,461 .76 in damages, appellants submitted affidavits from their thre e New York attorneys and their local counsel seeking a total of $178,221.25 i n attorney & s fees and $20,166.65 in costs. After concluding that both the hourly rate and the amount of time expended were exc essive, and further reducing the lodestar in light of the part ial success on the merits, the district court awarded appellants $27,500 i n attorn ey & 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 judgmen t awarded to the plaintiff or plaintiffs, allow a reasonab le attorney & s fee to be paid by the defendant, a nd costs of the action.” 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The district court has th e 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 attor ney & s fees, the district court is to consider several factors in determining the lodestar amount (the reasonable number of hours worke d multiplied by the market rate), and in considering adjustments to the total fee award. See Hensl ey v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 433-34 (1983); Zoll v. Eastern Allamake e Community Sch. Dist. , 588 F.2d 246, 252 & n.11 (8th Cir. 1978) (listing factors). By considering the n

umber of attorneys involved in presenting plaintiffs & cases, th e lack of complexity of issues, and the similarity of plaintiffs & individual claims--all of w hich are appropriate factors to consider--the district court did not abuse it s discretion in reducing the requested lodestar amount. Although the district court did notsp ecifically 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 wit hin its discretion in reducing the awardbased on the limited success achieved. See H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp. , 925 F.2d 257, 2 60 (8th Cir. 1991) (district court & s 50% reduction in lodestar based on limite d 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.