FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 23, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 10 -1 19 84 & 1 0- 14 52 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -2 04 72 -MGC IVONNE E. GALDAMES, JAC QUELINE GALDAMES, GUILLERMO OSORIO, on th ei r own be ha lf a ndot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff s - Ap pe ll ees , ver su s N & D INVESTMENT CORP., a Fl or id a Co rp or at io n, d.b .a. Mr. Cl ean Co m

m erci al Laun dry , OFER MANOR, i nd iv idua ll y , ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll an ts .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 3, 2 01 1) Befo re WILSON, MARTIN an d B LACK, Circ ui t Jud ge s.PER CURI AM:

N & D Inv es tm en t Co rp or at io n a ndOfer Ma no r (“ Defen da nt s” ) ap pe al an adve rs e jury verd ic t an d a wardof a tt orne y s’ fees . Ivo nn e Gal da m es , Jac qu el in e Gald am es , andGui ll erm o Os or io (“ Pl ai nt iff s” ) su edDefen da nt s u nd er the Fai r Lab or Sta nd ard s Act(“ FLSA”), al le gi ng th atth ey were n otco m

pe ns at edfor ov ert im e work c om

pl et edbe twee n 2 00 5 and20 07 . They so ug htjus t u nd er $2 2,0 00 . The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d P la in ti ffs ’ pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t an d t he n co nduc te d ajury tri al on th e rem ai ni ng is su es . The jury award edPla in ti ffs ap pr ox im at el y

$1 4,0 00 in da m ag es an d fo un d t ha t Def en da nt s ei th er kno win gl y vi ol at edth e FLSA o r sh owe d re ck le ss in di ffer en ce t o t he law. Ba se d o n t he jury’ s la tt er fi nd in g, the di st ric t co urt award edli qu id at edda m ag es , res ul ti ng inanaward of m or e th an$2 8,0 00 forPla in ti ffs . The d is tri ctco urt al so award edPla in ti ffs m or e th an$1 00 ,00 0 i n a tt orne y s’ fees as p rev ai li ng pl ai nt iff s. Aft er re vi ew of

th e ex te ns iv e rec or d andDefen da nt s’ bri ef, we aff irm. 1 I. The FLSA requi res co ve red“ em pl oyers” to pa y

ov ert im e wag es on ce

“ em pl oyees” ex ceedforty hou rs of wo rk in a gi ve n wee k. 2 9 U.S.C. § 20 7( a). Exc ep t fo r th e ex pl ic itex cep ti on s wi th in th e st atut e, “ th e te rm ‘ em pl oyee’ m ean s Plaintiffs’ motion to participate in oral a rgument is denied as moot. 1 2an y

in di vi du al em

pl oyed b y anem pl oyer.” § 2 03 (e)( 1) . Eith er i nd iv idua l co ve rag e o r en te rp ris e co ve rag e can tri gg er the FLSA, bu t h ere we a re o nl y co nc ern edwith e nt erp ris e co ve rag e. Pol yca rp e v. E &S La nd

sc ap in g S erv., In c. , 61 6 F .3d12 17 , 12 20 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (p er cu ria m). Ent erp ris e co ve rag e is tri gg eredif a n e m

pl oyer (1) “ ha s emplo y ees en ga ge d i n c omm erce or i n t he pr oduc ti on of g oo ds forco m m erce , or [] ha s emplo y ees ha nd li ng , sel li ng , or ot he rwis e worki ng on go od s o r m at eri al s t ha t h av e b een m ov edin or p ro du cedfor co m m erce by any

pe rs on ” an d (2 ) ha s atlea st$5 00 ,00 0 o f “ an nu al gro ss vo lu m e of sal es m ad e o r bu si ne ss do ne .” § 2 03 (s )(1 )(A). The FLSA de fin es “ co m m erce ” as “ tra de , comm erce , tra ns po rta ti on , trans m is si on , or c omm un ic at io n a m on g t he se ve ral Sta te s o r be twee n a ny Stat e an d a ny pla ce o ut si de th ereo f.” § 20 3( b) . A. Defen da nt s fi rs t co nt en d t ha t the di stric t co urt co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r in fai li ng to gra ntth ei r po st -tr ia l m ot io n fo r jud gm en t as a m at te r of law p ur su an t t o Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 0. Th ey be li ev e th atPla in ti ffs are n ot

“ em pl oyees” un de r th e FLSA b ecau se th ey are i ll eg al ali en s. Defe nd an ts arg ue , in te r a li a , th atwe sh ou ldig no re b in di ng , on -p oi ntpre ced en t, Pat el v. Qua li tyInn

3So uth , 84 6 F .2d70 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) . They bel ie ve th is is ap pr op ria te be cau se 2 (1 ) Pat el co nf li ct s wi th Hof

fma n Plas ti c Co mpo un ds , In c. v. NLRB , 53 5 U.S. 1 37 , 12 2 S . Ct. 1 27 5 (2 00 2) , and(2) itwas d eci de d “ m or e th antwen ty (20 ) y ears ag o, whe re [s ic ] th e p ro bl em s wi th il le ga l i m m ig rat io n a ndem

pl oym en t o f il le ga l imm ig ran t wo rk ers ha d n otreac he d t he ex cep ti on al pro po rti on s t ha t the y are at no w in20 11 . . . .” Earl ie r ho ld in gs by pan el s o f th is Co urt ar e b in di ng “un le ss an d unt il th ey are c le arl y

ov erru le d b y

th is co urt en ba nc or b y

th e Supr em e Co urt. Whil e an in te rv en in g d eci si on of the Supr em e Co urt ca n o ve rru le th e d eci si on of apri or pa ne l o f ou r co urt, the Supr em e Co urt d eci si on m us t b e cl earl y

on po in t.” Ran da ll v. Sc ot t , 61 0 F .3d70 1, 7 07 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) . A pan el of t hi s C ou rt h as pre vi ou sl y de te rm in edth atil le ga l al ie ns are co ve red“ em

pl oyees” un de r th e FLSA. Pat el , 84 6 F .2dat 7 06 (“ Insh ort, we h ol d

Def endants pre sent a number of other a

rguments under this hea ding a s well. First, they 2 believe a number of so- called “prac tical and policy-base d” re asons justify the conc lusion that illega l aliens are not cover ed by the FL SA. For e x ample, cove rag e is not warr anted be cause “[t] he Plaintiffs, quite simply , are fug itives from justice, and should be de alt with the Court [ sic] in that manner . . . .” Second, De fenda nts argue that the doc trine of in pari delicto applies and bars r ecove ry

since Plaintiffs, as illeg al aliens, have ente red thecountry in violation of the law and “w ill tend to li e bec ause the y have no f ear .” Third, De fenda

nts alleg e (1) that Plaintiffs’ counsel c ommitt ed a “ serious fe lony” by repr esentingillega l aliens and (2) that allowingillega l immigra nts to bring suit “make s ever yone in the cour

troom (if the a

ppropriate action is not taken) complicit with assisti nga known illeg al immigra nt beca use two lawyers, the Judge , and the Marsha ll’s service will all know that Plainti ffs a re f ug itives from justice . . . .” As none of these arguments matter in light of Patel , we de cline to discuss them. 4th atun do cu m en te d wo rk ers are ‘em pl oyees’ withi n t he m ean in g o f th e FLSA . . . .”). Sp eci fic al ly, we co nc lu de d, af te r pa ss ag e o f th e Imm ig rat io n R efo rm an d Co nt ro l Actof 1 98 6 (“ IRCA” ), th atil le ga l al ie ns were co ve red“ em pl oyees” un de r th e FLSA an d c ou ldsu e fo r unpa idwage s. Id . The Supr em e Co urt’s o pi ni on in Hof fma n Plas ti c rul edth atth e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Bo ardco ul d n otaward ba ck pay —fo r work n ev er p erfo rm ed —t o a n i ll eg al ali enun de r th e Nat io na l Lab or Rel at io ns Act (“NLRA”) aft er Co ng res s p as se d t he IRCA. 5 35 U.S. at 1 47 –4 9. Hof fma n Plas ti c is no t “ cl earl y on po in t” with Pat el . Firs t, Pat el rul edon th e FLSA an d Hof

fma n Plas ti c rul edon th e NLRA. Furth erm or e, in Pat el , th e il le ga l al ie n was “ no t at te m pt in g t o re co ve r ba ck

pa y forbe in g u nl awfu ll y de pr iv edof ajob . Rath er, h e si m pl y [so ug ht ] to reco ve r unpa idm in im um wage s an d o ve rti m e fo r work alre ad ype rfo rm ed .” 84 6 F .2dat 7 05 . Con ve rs el y , th e il le ga l al ie n i n Hof

fma n Plas ti c so ug htba ck pa y forbe in g unl awfu ll y

de pr iv edof hi s jo b a fte r en ga gi ng in un io n o rg an iz in g a ct iv it ie s. 5 35 U.S. 14 0– 41 . Bas edon th es e d is ti nc ti on s, Hof

fma n Plas ti c di d n otcle arl y ov erru le Pat el . Accor di ng ly, we rei te rat e th atil le ga l al ie ns are “ em pl oyees” co ve redby the FLSA. B. Defen da nt s n ex t ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d e rro r whe n i t gr an te d P la in ti ffs ’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t as to “ en te rp ris e co ve rag e.” 5Fi rs t, Defe nd an ts co nt en d t ha t the co urt m is ta ke nl y co nc lu de d t ha t Def

en da nt s’ an nu al sal es ex ceed edth e $ 50 0,0 00 th res ho ldest ab li sh edby § 20 3( s) (1 )(A)(i i). Seco nd , Defen dant s ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt i nc orrect ly deci de d t ha t the y m et § 2 03 (s )(1 )(A)(i )’s in te rs ta te co m m erce requi rem en t. We revi ew gr an ts of su m m ary jud gm en t de no vo , app lying th e sa m e le ga l s ta nd ardas t he di st ric t co urt. Fogad e v. ENB Revo ca bl e Tr us t , 26 3 F .3d12 74 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ). W e co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt p ro pe rly gran te d s umm ary jud gm en t. Fi rs t, as to an nu al gro ss rev enue , Pla in ti ffs ’ co m pl ai ntall eg ed“ 10 . Bas edup on in fo rm at io n a ndbe li ef, atall ti m es m at eri al to th is co m pl ai ntDefen da nt s h adan an nu al gro ss vo lu m e o f sa le s o r bu si ne ss do ne of n otles s t ha n $ 50 0,0 00 .00 , ex cl us iv e o f ex ci se tax es at t he ret ai l wh ic h a re s ep arat el y st at ed , andat l eas t two em pl oyees e ng ag edin in te rs ta te co m m erce .” Defen da nt s’ ans wer s ta te d “ 10 . Defen da nt s ad m itth atth e an nu al gro ss rev enue ex ceed s $ 50 0,0 00 pe r y ear; all ot he r al le ga ti on s co nt ai ne d i n p arag rap h n in e [s ic ] are d en ie d.” W e h ol d Defen da nt s t o t ha t ad m is si on . Co op er v. Meri di an Y

ac ht s, Ltd. , 57 5 F .3d11 51 , 11 77 –7 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 9) (“ [T]he g en eral rul e [i s] th ata pa rty is b ou ndby the adm is si on s i n h is pl ead in gs . Ind eed , fact s ju di ci al ly adm it te d a re fa ct s es tabl is he d no t o nl y be y on d t he ne edof e vi de nc e to pro ve th em , bu t b ey on d the po wer o f ev id en ce t o c on tro ve rt t he m .” (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). 6Seco nd , aft er re vi ew of th e en ti re rec or d, we co nc lu de th atDefen da nt s’ sa ti sf ie d § 20 3( s) (1 )(A)(i )’s in te rs ta te co m m erce requi rem en t. Defe nd an ts see m to be att em pt in g t o re su rrec t the so -cal le d “ co m in g t o re st ” d oc tri ne , whi ch we ha ve ex pl ic it ly rejected . Pol

yca rp e , 61 6 F .3dat 1 22 1. Th eref or e, we affi rm

th e d is tri ct co urt’s g ran t o f pa rti al su m m ary jud gm en t o n t hi s i ss ue . 3

II. As p rev ai li ng pa rti es , Pla in ti ffs fil eda m ot io n s eek in g app ro xi m at el y $1 20 ,00 0 i n a tt orne y s’ fees an d c os ts . The d is tri ctco urt ev en tu al ly awarde d $1 12 ,49 5. Defe nd an ts ap pe al th ataward , all eg in g (1 ) Pl ai nt iff s’ m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees was u nt im el y , (2) th e fee s award edwere g ro ss ly exces si ve , and(3) an y fee awa rdsh ou ldha ve be enreduc edbe cau se Pla in ti ffs on ly part ia ll y su ccee de d i n t he li ti ga ti on . A. The di stric t co urt en te redfin al jud gm en t o n Jul y 31 , 20 09 . Defen da nt s fi le d a num be r of ti m el y po st -tr ia l m ot io ns , in cl ud in g, in te r a li a , a m ot io n fo r a n ew

Def endants ra ise two additional arguments reg arding the trial proc eeding s. First, they 3 argue that the district cour t erre d in concludingthat plaintiff Osorio did not qualify for the “executive e x emption” to the FL SA. 29 C.F.R. § 541.100. Second, Def endants c ontend that the district court abuse d its discretion by decliningto allow Def

endants (1) to impeach Plaintiffs’ cre dibilit y

by ref ere ncingtheir status as illeg al aliens, a nd (2) to ca ll a rebuttal witness to impeach Plaintiffs. Af

ter re view of D efe ndants’ brie f and the rec ord, we conclude these c laims have no me rit and do not war rant fur ther discussion.

7tri al pu rs ua ntto Fed eral Ru le of C iv il Pro cedur e 5 9. Th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ru le

on th es e m ot io ns un ti l M arch 20 10 . On Oct ob er 8 , 20 09 —6 8 d ay s af te r th e d is tri ctco urt en te redjud gm en t b ut be fo re s ix m on th s b efo re i t ad jud ic at edpo st -tr ia l m ot io ns —Pl ai nt iff s m ov edfor at to rn ey s’ fees . As pr ev ai li ng pa rti es , th ey reque st edm or e th an$1 20 ,00 0 i n fe es an d c os ts . Three att orne y s wo rk edon th e cas e—M r. Mar ba n, M r. Vala qu ez, an d Mr. Di az— an d e achsubm it te d t he nu m be r of ho ur s wo rk edan d t he ir r eque st ed ho ur ly fee: $ 35 0, $ 30 0, an d $ 29 5, re sp ect iv el y . The m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d t ha t Pl ai nt iff

s b e award ed$1 07 ,81 0 i n a tt orne y s’ fees an d $ 4,6 85 in co st s. Th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t ha t re co m m en da ti on an d fi le d an o rd er re qu iri ng Defen da nt s t o p ay

$1 12 ,49 5. B. Defen da nt s fi rs t ar gu e th atPla in ti ffs ’ m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees was un ti m el y . At th e rel ev an t t im e, th e lo cal rul es of t he So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a requi redth atanatt orne y s’ fees m ot io n “ be fil edan d s erv edwithi n t hi rty days of en try of a Fi na l J ud gm en t o r ot he r ap pe al ab le ord er tha t g iv es ris e to att orne y ’s fees .” S.D. Fla. Ru le 7.3 (A)(v ii ). It i s und is pu te d t ha t Pl ai nt iff s fi le d t he ir m ot io n 68 da y s af

te r th e d is tri ctco urt en te redjud gm en t. Acco rd in gl y , Defen da nt s i ns is t th e m ot io n i s u nt im el y

an d n o fe es sh ou ldbe award ed .

8A li ti ga nt ’s fai lu re t o fi le a m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees withi n t he pre sc rib ed

pe rio d c anres ul t i n d en ia l o f th atm ot io n. Se e Clark v. Hou s. Au th . of Alma , 97 1 F.2 d 7 23 , 72 7 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 2) . Cert ai n p os t-t ria l m ot io ns , ho wev er, “ op erat e[] to su sp en d t he fin al it y

of t he di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t ‘pen di ng th e co urt’s fu rth er de te rm in at io n wh ethe r th e jud gm en t s ho ul d b e m od ifi edso as t o a lt er i ts ad jud ic at io n o f th e ri gh ts of t he pa rti es .’ ” Memb er s Fi rs t Fed. Cre di t Un io n v . Memb er s Fi rs t Cr edit

Uni on of Fla . , 24 4 F .3d80 6, 8 07 (11 th Cir . 20 01 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ti ng Bro wd

er v. Dir ., Dep’t

of Co rr . , 43 4 U.S. 2 57 , 26 7, 9 8 S . Ct. 5 56 (1 97 8) ) (h ol di ng th ata Ru le 59 m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d ju dg m en t ef fect iv el y to ll s th e ti m e requi rem en t fo r fi li ng a m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees ). Ther efo re, jud gm en ts do no t ac tu al ly beco m e “ fin al ” fo r pu rp os es of a n a tt orne y s’ fees m ot io n u nt il cert ai n p os t-t ria l m ot io ns are ad jud ic at ed . Se e id . (“ [T]he fi na li ty of a jud gm en t i s effe ct iv el y

po stpo ne d b y

th e ti m el y

fil in g o f a m ot io n u nd er Ru le 59 . . . .”). Whi le itis un co nt es te d t ha t Pl ai nt iff s m ov edforatt orne y s’ fees 68 da y s aft er the di stric t co urt en te redjud gm en t, Defe nd an ts fai l t o app reci at e th atth ei r ti m el y Ru le 59 m ot io n e xt en de d P la in ti ffs ’ de ad li ne forreque st in g a tt orne y s’ fees . Inot he r wor ds , Pla in ti ffs co ul d h av e fi le d ati m el y m ot io n fo r at to rn ey s’ fees up to 30 da y s af

te r th e d is tri ctco urt ru le d o n Def en dant s’ new t ria l m ot io n. As Pl ai nt iff s fi le d t he ir m ot io n b efo re the co urt’s Ma rch 20 10 de ni al of d efen da nt ’s 9po st -tr ia l m ot io n, i t was ne ces sa ril y ti m el y . Accor di ng ly, we rejectDefen da nt s’ pr oc edur al ch al le ng e to th e at to rn ey s’ fees awardan d a dd res s the ir s ub st an ti ve at ta ck s. C. Defen da nt s n ex t ar gu e th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s at to rn ey s’ fees awardwas gr os sl y ex ces si ve . They al le ge th at(1) th e num be r of ho ur s b il le d was ex ces si ve be cau se itwas d oubl e th atof d efen se co un se l, (2 ) th e h ou rly rates so ug htare ex ces si ve , (3) th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d o n the reco rd —b efo re tria l—th atitwou ld ne ve r award$1 00 ,00 0 i n fe es forPla in ti ffs ’ co un se ls ’ work t o tha t p oi nt , and(4) Pl ai nt iff s’ cou ns el sh ou ldhave be enest op pe d fr om rece iv in g fe es be cau se th ey ha ve tak enin co ns is te ntpo si ti on s i n u nr el at edFLSA li ti ga ti on . 4 W e rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s awar d o f at to rn ey s’ fees foranab us e o f di sc ret io n, cl os el y

an al y zi ng an y

leg al co nc lu si on s re ach eddu rin g the fee de te rm in at io n. Gra

y v. Lo ckh eed

Aero na ut ic al

Sys. Co . , 12 5 F .3d13 87 , 13 89 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7) . “ An ab us e o f di sc ret io n o ccu rs if t he jud ge fai ls to ap pl y th e pr op er l eg al st an da rdor t o fo ll ow p ro pe r pr oc edur es in m ak in g t he de te rm in at io n, orba se s an awardup on fin di ng s o f fac t tha t ar e cl earl y erro ne ou s.” In re Red Ca rp et Co rp . of Pan ama Cit

y Bea ch , 90 2 F .2d88 3, 8 90 (11 thCir . 19 90 ). The last two arguments have no me rit, and we decline to discuss them. 4 10“ Altho ug h adi st ric t co urt h as wid e d is cret io n i n p erfo rm in g t he se cal cu la ti on s, the

co urt’s o rd er o n a tt orne y

fees m us t al lo w m ean in gf

ul rev ie w—the di st ric t co urt m us t arti cu la te th e d eci si on s i t m ad e, gi ve pri nc ip le d re as on s fo r th os e d eci si on s, an d s ho w it s ca lc ul at io n.” Am. Civi l Li be rt ies Un io n o f Ga . v. Barne s , 16 8 F .3d 42 3, 4 27 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ) (al te rat io ns om it te d) (ci ta ti on s an d i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Gen eral ly, a p rev ai li ng pl ai nt iff in a FLSA cas e is en ti tl edto a reas on ab le awardof a tt orne y s’ fees an d c os ts . 29 U.S.C. § 2 16 (b ); Sa hy er s v. Pr ugh, Hol li da y & Ka ra ti no s, P.L. , 56 0 F .3d12 41 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Cal cu la ti on of at to rn ey s’ fees in vo lv es m ul ti pl y in g t he nu m

be r of ho ur s re as on ab ly exp en de d i n li ti ga ti ng th e cl ai m

an d t he cu st om ary fee c ha rg edforsi m il ar l eg al servi ces in th e rel ev an t co m

m un it y (“ lo de st ar am ou nt ”). Se e Hen sl ey v. Eckh erha rt , 46 1 U.S. 42 4, 4 33 , 10 3 S . Ct. 1 99 3 (1 98 3) . A pro pe rly calc ul at edlo de st ar am ou nt“ is it se lf st ro ng ly pres um edto be reas on ab le .” Reso lu ti on Tru st Co rp . v. Hal lma rk Bui lder s, In c. , 99 6 F .2d11 44 , 11 50 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ) (p er cu ria m) (“ Co ns eque nt ly, th e co urts ha ve sev erel y

li m it edth e in st an ces in whi ch a la wfu ll y fou ndlo de st ar am ou ntm ay

be ad jus te d t o ahi gh er o r lo wer l ev el .”). The fir stst ep in de te rm in in g t he pro pe r lo de st ar am ou ntis cal cu la ti ng th e nu m be r of ho ur s re as on ab ly exp en de d o n the li ti ga ti on . Prev ai li ng pl ai nt iff’s 11at to rn ey s “ m us t ex erci se th ei r own bi ll in g ju dg m en t t o e xc lu de an y ho ur s t ha t ar e ‘exces si ve , redun da nt , or o th erwi se un ne ces sary .’ ” Id . at 1 14 9 (quo ti ng Hen sl ey , 46 1 U.S. at43 4) . Atto rn ey s m ay bi ll adve rs ari es for

on ly the same ho ur s t he y wou ldbi ll a cl ie nt . Id . Sim il arl y , “ a c ou rt m ay reduc e ex ces si ve , redun da ntor ot he rwis e u nn eces sary

ho ur s i n t he ex erci se of b il li ng jud gm en t.” Perkin s v. Mob il e Hou s. Bd. , 84 7 F .2d73 5, 7 38 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ) (em ph as is ad de d) . If th e co urt co nc lu de s t ha t the nu m be r of cla im edho ur s i s ex ces si ve , itm ay en ga ge in

“ anacro ss -th e-b oardcu t,” s o l on g a s i t p ro vi de s ad equa te expl an at io n fo r th e de crea se . Bivi ns v. W

ra p i t Up , Inc . , 54 8 F .3d13 48 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (p er cu ria m). Here, the m ag is tra te jud ge be ga n h is ho ur s- ex pe nd edan al y si s b y no ti ng : [f]ol lo win g care fu l rev ie w of th e subm it t e d ti m e reco rd s, th e un de rs ig ne d fin ds th at m os t, bu t n o t al l, of co un se ls ’ ti m e en t rie s are de ta il ed , well do cu m en te d an d refl ect a reas on ab le am ou ntof t im e d ev ot edto each li st ed ta sk . In so fin di ng , th e un de rs ig ne d ha s cl os el y sc ru ti ni zed th e ti m e en tri es sp eci fic al ly chal le ng edby defen da nt s. The m ag is tra te jud ge sp en t the ne xtth ree p ag es rev ie win g t he reas on ab le ne ss of th e h ou rs pre se nt ed . Not ab ly, he reduc edth e fee s fo r Mr. M arb anby 20% b ecau se

“ he de sc rib e[d ] th e work p erfo rm edon nu m ero us tas ks with o nl y on e co rres po nd in g t im e en try.” Then , inco ns id eri ng Mr. Ma rb an ’s ho ur s, the m ag is tra te jud ge co ns id eredth e sa m e arg um en ts rai se d h ere— su ch as t ak in g 12ex ces si ve ti m e to cal cu la te da m ag es , dra ft ju ry in st ru ct io ns , andge ne ral ly fam il ia riz e h im se lf wi th th e cas e. Ult im at el y , th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t, aft er the 20 % reduc ti on , th e num be r of ho ur s M r. Mar

ba n c ha rg edwas re as on ab le un de r th e ci rcu m st an ces . As to th e o th er two at to rn ey s, the m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t the ir h ou rs were re as on ab le be cau se th ey cle arl y refl ect edth e se rv ic es pe rfo rm edan d areas on ab le nu m be r of ho ur s i n c om

pl et in g e ach . In co nc lu si on , he s ta te d t ha t “ [w]hil e [the att orne y s’ fees award ] ex ceed s p la in ti ffs ’ cu m ul at iv e award , th e u nd

er si gn ed no tes tha t ex ces si ve h ou rs wer e exp en de d b y pl ai nt if fs ’ co un se l d

ue to de fe nd an ts ’ un ne ces sa ryli ti

ga ti on tec hn iq ue s w hi ch pr ol on ge d this l it ig at io n . . . .” (em ph as is ad de d) . After r ev ie w, we can no t co nc lu de th atth e m ag is tra te ’s reco m m en da ti on , as a do pt edby the di stric t co urt, de m on st rat edan y

ab us e o f di sc ret io n i n d et erm in in g re as on ab le ho ur s ex pe nd ed . Rea so nabl e h ou rly rates are d et erm in edby com pa rin g a tt orne y s’ reque st ed rat e wit h t he “pr ev ai li ng m ark etrat es in th e rel ev an t co m m un it y .” Blu m v. St en so n , 46 5 U.S. 8 86 , 89 5, 1 04 S. Ct. 1 54 1 (1 98 4) . The p arty ap pl y in g fo r fee s be ars th e b ur de n o f es tabl is hi ng th e rea so nabl en es s o f th e p ro ffer edrat e. Duc kwo rth v . W

hise na nt , 97 F.3d13 93 , 13 96 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (p er cu ria m). Whi le pre vi ou s h ou rly rate a ward s ar e n otgi ve n c on tro ll in g wei gh t, the y do 13pr ov id e so m e in si gh t. Se e Dil la rd v. Cit y o f Gr een sb or o , 21 3 F .3d13 47 , 13 54 –5 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 0) (pe r curia m). They do n ot , ho wev er, tru m p t he att orne y ’s actua l bi ll in g ra te to ot he r pa y in g c li en ts . Id . at 1 35 5. Here, Pl ai nt iff

s’ att orne y s s ub m it te d a n a ffi da vi t fr om a bo ardcert ifi edlab or an d e m pl oym en t l aw at to rn ey , who co nc lu de d tha t the ho ur ly rate fo r eac h o f th e at to rn ey s was reas on ab le . Furt he rm or e, Pl ai nt iff s ci te d o th er d is tri ctco urt ca se s award in g t wo o f Pl ai nt iff s’ att orne y s the ex actfees so ug htinth is cas e. The m ag is tra te jud ge cit edth es e fac ts an d n ot edth athi s “ fam il ia rit y with s uc h li ti ga ti on an d a tt orne y ’s fees in ge ne ral ” supp orte d t he ho ur ly rates reque st edby Pl ai nt iff s’ att orne y s. Defe nd an ts co m pl ai n t ha t Pl ai nt iff

s’ att orne y s p ro vi de d n o ev id en ce o f th ei r or di na ry ho ur ly rate, an d t he y

in st eadsu gg es t tha t $ 10 0 p er h ou r wou ldbe ap pr op ria te . Howev er, Defe nd an ts pro vi de no ev id en ce fo r th atho ur ly rat e an d o nl y

att ackth e cre di bi li ty of Pl ai nt iff s’ exp ertby not in g t ha t h e li ti ga te s si m il ar ca se s. No th in g i n Def en da nt s’ bri ef p oi nt s t o any errorth atco ul d b e co ns id eredanab us e o f di sc ret io n i n d et erm in in g t he ap pr op ria te ho ur ly rate fo r Pl ai nt iff s’ att orne y s. As we h av e d et erm in edth atth e num be r of ho ur s ex pe nd edan d t he ho ur ly rat es are ap pr op ria te , a stro ng pre su m pt io n o f rea so nabl en es s ap pl ie s. Se e Reso lu ti on Tru st

Co rp . , 99 6 F .2dat 1 15 0. Aft er re vi ew, we do no t b el ie ve 14Defen da nt s h av e d em on strat edth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n re ach in g

th e u lt im at e fee award . D. Fi na ll y , Defen dant s ar gu e th atPla in ti ffs “ di d n otach ie ve to ta l s uc ces s, as th ey rece iv edon ly 63.8 8% o f th e m on ie s tha t the y so ug ht . Accor di ng ly, th e lo de st ar s ho ul d h av e b een reduc edby at le as t tha t am ou nt .” Pl ai nt iff s’ su cces s, o r la ckth ereo f, is anim po rta ntco ns id erat io n a ndcan res ul t i n aco nc lu si on th atth e lo de st ar am ou ntm us t b e reduc ed . Se e Dil la rd , 21 3 F.3 d a t 1 35 4– 55 . Here, ho wev er, Pl ai nt iff s wer e su cces sf

ul on th ei r so le cla im an d re cei ve d asi gn ifi can t p orti on of t he da m ag es so ug ht . After l iqui da te d da m ag es were ac ces se d, Pl ai nt iff s re cei ve d m or e th anth e o ve rti m e sa la ry th ey or ig in al ly requ es te d. As su ch , we do no t thi nkth e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n i ts ul ti m at e d et erm in at io n. III. Bas edon th e fo reg oi ng di sc us si on , we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng s. AFFIRMED.

15