FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 13, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 15 40 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 00 12 4- CV-OC-1 0- GRJ PERRY R. DIONNE, on hi s o wn b eh al f an d o n b eh al f of all ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us FLOORMASTERS ENTERPR ISES, INC., a Fl or id a co rp or at io n, ROBERT MOLSI CK, in di vi du al ly, Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 13 , 20 12 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, HILL andALARCÓN, Cir cu itJu dg es . * ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Honora ble Arthur L . Alarc ón, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing * by designation.ALARCÓN, Circ ui t Jud ge :

Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t’s Pe ti ti on forReh eari ng fil edSep te m be r 1, 2 01 1 i s GRANTED in p artan d DENIED in pa rt. Th e Co urt VACATES an d W ITHDRAW S th e p rev io us op in io n i n t hi s ca se , publ is he d o n J ul y 28 , 20 11 , at 64 7 F .3d11 09 (11 th Cir . 20 11 ). The C ou rt s ub st itut es th e fo ll owi ng op in io n. Inth is m at te r, we m

us t d eci de whet he r an em pl oyer, who de ni es li ab il it y for
no np aym en t fo r ov ert im e work, m us t p ay att orne y ’s fees an d c os ts pu rs ua ntto 29 U.S.C. § 2 16 (b ) of

th e Fai r Lab orSta nd ard s Act(“ FLSA”) i f th e em pl oyer te nd ers th e fu ll am ou ntof o ve rti m e p ay cla im edby an em

pl oyee, andm ov es to di sm is s o n m oo tn es s g ro un ds wher e th e em pl oyee co nc ed es th at“ th e cl ai m for
ov ert im e sh ou ldbe di sm is se d a s m oo t.” We con cl ud e th at , un de r su ch ci rcu m st an ces , th e d is m is sa l o f th e em pl oyee’s co m

pl ai nt , witho utanawardof at to rn ey ’s fees , is no t erro ne ou s p ur su an t t o § 21 6( b) be cau se th e Dis tri ctCo urt di d n otawardjud gm en t t o t he em pl oyee as th e p rev ai li ng pa rty. A cco rd in gl y , we affi rm . I A The pa rti es do no t d is pu te th e fo ll owi ng fact s: Dio nn e was em pl oyed b y Fl oo rm as te rs Ent erp ris es , Inc . (“ Fl oo rm as te rs ”) fro m Sep te m be r 19 , 20 07 un ti l Nov em be r 27 , 20 07 as awareh ou se cle rk . Rob ertMo ls ic k was a m an ag er wh o 2ha d d ire ctco nt ro l o ve r Dio nn e’s work, p ay , andjob du ti es . On Ma rch24 , 20 08 ,

Dio nn e fi le d aco m

pl ai ntin th e Dis tri ctCo urt p ur su an t t o § 21 6( b) on hi s o wn be ha lf andon be ha lf o f othe r wareh ou se cle rk s wh o h adwork edforFlo orm as te rs wit hi n t he pre vi ou s t hr ee years to reco ve r ov ert im e co m pe ns at io n, l iqui da te d 1 da m ag es , andreas on ab le att orne y ’s fees an d c os ts . Flo orm as te rs fil eda pl ead in g, st y le d a s a Ten de r of

Fu ll Paym en t an d M ot io n t o Di sm is s C om pl ai ntwit h Preju di ce, o n Ap ril 23 , 20 08 . In t he ir m ot io n, Fl oo rm as te rs all eg edth at

[a]ltho ug h Defen dant s vi go ro us ly de ny al l of Pl ai nt iff’s al le ga ti on s, Pl ai nt iff’s cl ai m , an d th at Defen da nt s owe Pl ai nt iff an y am ou nt of m on ey fo r un pa id ov ert im e wag es or an y da m ag es , in th e in t e r e st s of ex pe di ti ou s res ol ut io n of Pl ai nt iff’s cl ai m an d effi ci e nt us e of th is Co urt’s ti m e an d res ou rces , Defen da nt s he reb y te nd er to Pl ai nt iff pa ym en t in fu ll fo r an ov ert im e wag es cl ai m , li qu i d a te d da m ag es , andin te res t, i n t he to ta l am ou ntof $ 63 7.9 8. B Dio nn e fi le d ares po ns e in op po si ti on to Flo orm as te rs ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s
on May 6, 20 08 . Dio nn e as se rte d t ha t “ Pl ai nt iff ’s cla im forov ert im e is st il l at is su e b ecau se Pla in ti ff cl ai m s o ve rti m e d am ag es ab ov e Defen da nt ’s est im at io n o f
ov ert im e due .” Dio nn e es ti m at edth athi s t ot al da m ag es were $ 3,0 00 . On Ma y 9, 20 08 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt d en ie d t he Defen da nt s’ Tend er o f Fu ll Paym en t an d Mo ti onto Dis m is s C om

pl ai ntwit h P reju di ce. Itreas on edas f ol lo ws:
Dionne filed this lawsuit as a c ollective ac tion. He fa iled to seek lea ve to pursue it as a 1 collective a ction. 3Giv enth e d is crep an ci es be twee n t he Part ie s’ ass ert io ns as to th e am ou ntof d am ag es at i ss ue in th is cas e, th e Co urt ca nn ot , at t hi s t im e, fi ndth atth e Defen da nt s h av e pa idin ful l t he Pla in ti ff’s cl ai m forov ert im e co m pe ns at io n. Th e cas e is at t he ve ry earl y st ag es , and di sc ov ery ha s n oty etbe gu n. C On M ay 19 , 20 08 , Flo orm as te rs fil eda se co ndTend er o f Fu ll Paym en t an d Mo ti onto Dis m is s C om

pl ai ntwit h P reju di ce p ur su an t t o R ul e 1 2( h) (3 ) of

th e Fed eral Ru le s o f Ci vi l Pr oc edur e. 2 Insupp ort o f it s m ot io n, Fl oo rm as te rs arg ue d: Alt ho ug h Def

en da nt s v ig or ou sl y

de ny all of P la in ti ff’s al le ga ti on s, Pl ai nt iff’s cla im , andth atDefen da nt s o we Pl ai nt iff an y am ou ntof m on ey

forunpa idov ert im e wag es or a ny dam ag es , to ren de r Pl ai nt iff’s cla im m oo t, Defen da nt s t en de redto Pla in ti ff p aym en t i n fu ll
. Defen da nt s’ ten de r was ba se d o n P la in ti ff’s o wn cal cu la ti on s i n h is May 6, 20 08 affi da vi t fi le d i n t he reco rdof t hi s ac ti on . As pr es en te d i n p arag rap h t wo o f th is m ot io n, Pl ai nt iff

cal cu la te d h is ov ert im e d am ag es to be $1 50 0.0 0 i n a ctua l d am ag es an d $ 15 00 .00 in li qu id at edda m ag es , to ta li ng $3 ,00 0.0 0. A p ho to co py of th e ch eckten de redto Pla in ti ff i s at ta ch ed , as Ex hi bi t A to th is Mo ti on . Fl oo rm as te rs als o c on te nd edth at

[h ]avi ng ten de redpa ym en t i n fu ll forall am ou nt s t ha t po ss ib ly cou ldbe owedto Pla in ti ff, acc or di ng to Pl ai nt iff’s own ve rs io n o f th e fac ts inhi s af fid av itfil ed Rule 12(h)(3) provides as f ollows: “I f the c ourt deter mines at any

time that it lacks 2 subject-matter

jurisdiction, the court must dismi ss the action.” 4in th e rec or d o f th is act io n, Def en da nt s h av e el im in at ed an y co ntro ve rs y

or c au se of a ct io n a va il ab le to be pu rs ue d b y

Pla in ti ff i n t hi s C ou rt, a nddi sm is sa l wi th pr ejud ic e, pu rs ua ntto Fed . R. Civ . P. 12 (h )(3 ), of Pl ai nt iff’s cla im s i s ap pr op ria te an d n eces sary .
Dio nn e fi le d ares po ns e to Flo orm as te rs ’ se co ndm ot io n t o d is m is s o n May 29, 2 00 8 i n wh ic h h e st at ed :

Pl ai nt iff ag rees th atsi nc e Defen da ntha s te nd eredful l p aym en t t o P la in ti ff an d ad m it te d o ve rti m e li ab il ity , th e is su e o f 3 ov ert im e is no w m oo t an d the cla im for ov ert im e sh ou ldbe di sm is se d. Ho wev er, Pl ai nt iff reque st s tha t t hi s C ou rt r es erv e juri sd ic ti on to co ns id er an awardof at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts an d g ran t Pl ai nt iff th irt y (30 ) da y s t o fi le it s M ot io n.

D On J un e 4 , 20 08 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt g ran te d F lo orm as te rs ’s Mo ti onto Dis m is s C om

pl ai ntW ith P reju di ce. Itord eredDio nn e to fil e h is “ m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees , if an y , withi n t hi rty (30 ) da y s o f th e d at e o f th is Orde r.”

Dionne’s a ssertion that Floorma sters “a dmitted overtime liability ” is contra ry to the 3 rec ord. In fac t, Floormaster s vigor ously denied in its motion that it owed Dionne a ny amount of money . 5E

Dio nn e fi le d am ot io n fo r an awardof a tt orne y fees an d c os ts on Ju ly 7, 20 08 in whi ch he arg ue d t ha t h e was en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees pu rs ua ntto 29 U.S.C. § 2 16 (b ) be cau se he was the pre va il in g p art y inth is act io n. Fl oo rm as te rs fil eda res po ns e inop po si ti on to Dio nn e’s m ot io n fo r an awardof at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts on Ju ly 16, 2 00 8. Fl oo rm as te rs m ai nt ai ne d tha t Di on ne
was no t en ti tl edto anawardof a tt orne y ’s fees an d c os ts be cau se no jud gm en t was award edto Dio nn e in th is act io n. Th e Dis tri ctCo urt d en ie d Di on ne ’s Mo ti on for Awardof At to rn ey ’s Fees an d C os ts on Sep te m be r 22 , 20 09 . The Di st ric t Co urt he ldth atDio nn e was no t en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees an d c os ts pu rs ua ntto § 2 16 (b ) be cau se th ere h as be enno jud ic ia l d et erm in at io n –

no r an y reque stby the Pla in ti ff fo r su ch a de te rm in at io n –th atth e Defen da nt s v io la te d th e FLSA’s ov ert im e co m pe ns at io n pr ov is io ns . Rath er, i t h as be encle ar fro m th e in cep ti on of t hi s l it ig at io n t ha t t he Defen da nt s h av e d en ie d a ny andall li ab il it y , an d m erel y

ten de redpa ym en t i n o rd er t o res ol ve th is cas e an d re nd er t he Pla in ti ff’s cl ai m m oo t. The Co urt fi nd s t ha t t he Pl ai nt iff’s cla im

forov ert im e co m

pe ns at io n was in factren de redm oo t wh enth e Defen da nt s t en de redful l p aym en t fo r al l reco ve rab le da m ag es – a f actth atth e Pl ai nt iff adm it te d i n i ts res po ns e.

6Dio nn e fi le d am ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n o n Oct ob er 7 , 20 09 . It was

de ni edon Octo be r 13 , 20 09
. Dio nn e fi le d ati m el y

no ti ce o f ap pe al onOcto be r 20 , 20 09 . This Co urt h as juri sd ic ti on ov er t hi s ap pe al pu rs uantto 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 1. II A Dio nn e co nt en ds th e Dis tri ctCo urt erredin co nc lu di ng th athe fai le d t o de m on st rat e th athe is en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees an d c os ts un de r 29 U.S.C. § 2 16 (b ). Sect io n 2 16 (b ) rea ds as f ol lo ws i n p ert in en t p art : Any em pl oyer who vi ol at es th e p ro vi si on s o f se ct io n 2 06 orsec ti on 20 7 of t hi s t it le sh al l b e li ab le to th e

4 em pl oyee or em pl oyees a ffec te d i n the am ou ntof t he ir un pa idm in im

um wage s, o r th ei r un pa idov ert im e co m pe ns at io n, as th e cas e m ay be , andin anad di ti on al equa l am ou ntas l iqui da te d d am ag es . . . . The co urt i n su ch act io n s ha ll , in ad

di ti on to an

y ju dgmen t a wa rded to th e p la in ti

ff or pl ai nt if fs , all ow a r eas on ab le att orne y ’s fee t o b e p ai d b y

th e d efen da nt , andco st s o f th e act io n. Id

. (em ph as is ad de d)
. Dio nn e arg ue s t ha t h e was a pr ev ai li ng pa rty in t hi s ac ti on be cau se Fl oo rm as te rs ten de redall ov ert im e an d l iqui da te d d am ag es to hi m aft er h e fi le d hi s co m pl ai nt . App el la nt ’s Br. 5. Di on ne ass ert s t ha t an em pl oyee can be a 29 U.S.C. § 206 sets the feder al minimum wage applicableto cer tain ty pes of 4 employees. 29 U .S.C. § 207 requires employers to pay overtime c ompensation to cer tain ty pes of employees. 7pr ev ai li ng pa rty with ou t s ub m it ti ng a fo rm al set tl em en t ag reem en t o r co ns en t

de cree to th e tr ia l co urt. He arg ue s t ha t wh ethe r an em pl oyee is a pr ev ai li ng pa rty

“ sh ou ldbe de te rm in edba se d o n t he act io ns of the Part ie s, t he Co urt an d the rel ie f th atwas o bt ai ne d fo ll owi ng th e fi li ng of the laws ui t.” Ap pe ll an t’s Br . 9.

“ The in te rp ret at io n o f a s ta tu te is a qu es ti on of l aw subjec t t o de no vo
rev ie w.” Co rp . Mgmt . Adviso rs , Inc . v. Art je n C omp le xu s, In c. , 56 1 F .3d12 94 , 12 96 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). Whe th er a p la in ti ff i s a “pr ev ai li ng pa rty” is als o re vi ewed de no vo . Ch ur ch of

Sc ie nt ol og

y Fla g Ser v., In c. v. Ci tyof Cle arwa te r , 2 F.3 d 15 09 , 15 13 (11 th Cir . 19 93 ). W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d eci si on whet he r to awardatt orne y ’s fees an d c os ts forab us e o f di sc ret io n. Sa hy er s v. Ho ll id

ay & Ka ra ti no s, P.L. , 56 0 F .3d12 41 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ) (ci ti ng Jo hn so n v. Flo ri da , 34 8 F.3 d 1 33 4, 1 35 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) ). B Dio nn e m ai nt ai ns th athe is en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees an d c os ts as a pr ev ai li ng pa rty becaus e th e fi li ng of h is co m pl ai ntbro ug htab ou t t he pa ym en t b y Fl oo rm as te rs of t he am ou ntof m on ey he reque st ed . This arg um en t i s ap pa ren tl y ba se d o n t he “ cat al y st ” te stth atwas p rev io us ly use d i n t hi s C irc ui t t o d et erm in e if a p art y ha d p rev ai le d i n alaws ui t. In Mor ris v. C it y o f West Palm Beac h , th is Co urt s ta te d: Bec au se App el la nt s d idno t re cei ve a fav or ab le jud gm en t 8on th e m eri ts or e nt ry of aco ns en t d ecre e o r se tt le m en t, th e o nl y m ean s t hr ou gh whi ch th ey co ul d b e fo un d t o ha ve pre va il edis th e “ cat al y st ” te st . Und er t he cat al y st te st , a pl ai nt iff

sh ou ldbe fou ndas p rev ai li ng if i ts en ds are a cco m

pl is he d a s t he res ul t o f th e li ti ga ti on ev en wit ho utform al jud ic ia l re co gn it io n, t he re i s a c au sa l co nn ect io n b etweenth e p la in ti ff’s lawsu itan d t he de fen da nt ’s act io ns pro vi di ng rel ie f to th e p la in ti ff, an d th e d efen dant ’s act io ns were re qu ire d b y law. 19 4 F .3d12 03 , 12 05 -0 6 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)
. In Buc kh an no n Bo ar d & Ca re Home, In c. v. W es t Vi rg in ia Depa rtmen t o f Hea lth & Huma n Res ou rc es , th e Supr em e Co urt re jecte d t he cat al y stth eo ry . 53 2 U.S. 59 8, 6 05 -1 0 (2 00 1) , su pe rs ed ed byst at ut e o n o th er

gr ou nd s , Open Gov ern m en t Actof 2 00 7, Pub. L. No. 1 10 -1 75 , 12 1 S ta t. 2 52 4. Itreas on edas fo ll ows : A def

en da nt ’s vo lu nt ary ch an ge inco nduc t, al th ou gh pe rh ap s ac co m

pl is hi ng whatth e p la in ti ff s ou gh t t o ach ie ve by the laws ui t, l ack s t he ne ces sa ry jud ic ia l imp ri mat ur

on th e ch an ge . Our p rece de nt s t hu s co un se l ag ai ns t h ol di ng th atth e te rm “pr ev ai li ng pa rty” au th or iz es anawardof a tt orne y ’s fees wi th ou t a co rres po nd in g a lt erat io n i n t he leg al rel at io ns hi p o f th e pa rti es . Id

. at 6 05
. Dio nn e arg ue s t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s d is m is sa l wi th pre jud ic e was
su ffi ci en t t o c ha ng e th e le ga l re la ti on sh ip of t he pa rti es as r equi redby Buc kh an no n . The ca se s o n wh ic h h e rel ie s, h owe ve r, do no t s up po rt t hi s
9co nt en ti on . For e xa m pl e, inOil

, Che mica l & Ato mic Worker s In te rn at io na l Un io n v. Dep ar tmen t o

f En er gy , th e p la in ti ffs all eg edth atth e d efen dantha d fa il edto
co m pl y wit h t he ir r eque stun de r th e Fre ed om of I nf orm at io n Act(“ FOIA”). 28 8 F.3 d 4 52 , 45 3 (D.C . Cir . 20 02 ), su pe rs ed ed bystat ut e o n o th er

gr ou nd s , Open Gov ern m en t Actof 2 00 7, Pub. L. No. 1 10 -1 75 , 12 1 S ta t. 2 52 4, as rec ogni ze d i n Su mmers v. Depa rtmen t o f Ju st ic e , 56 9 F .3d50 0, 5 03 (D.C. Cir . 20 09 ). The pa rti es subs eque nt ly ent eredin to a co urt-o rd eredst ip ul at io n t ha t t he de fen da ntha d
subs ta nt ia ll y

co m pl ie d wi th th e p la in ti ffs ’ FOIA reque st , andth e d is tri ctco urt award edth e p la in ti ffs co st s an d fe es . Id

. Pur su an t t o Buc kh an no n , whi chwas publ is he d wh il e th e ap pe al was p en di ng , th e D.C. Ci rcu itrev ers ed
. Id. at45 3, 45 8. Th e D.C. Ci rcu itexpr es sl y st at edth atth e st ip ul at io n “ di d n otm ean in gf ul ly al te r th e le ga l re la ti on sh ip of t he pa rti es ,” id

. at45 8; th eref or e th e p la in ti ffs were
no t p rev ai li ng pa rti es en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees un de r FOIA. Id

. at45 7- 59
. Lik ewis e, in Smy th ex. r el . Smyth v . River o , th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he pl ai nt iff’s civ il rig ht s ac ti on as m oo t an d a ward edatt orne y ’s fees an d c os ts to th e pl ai nt iff pu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 8. 2 82 F.3d26 8, 2 73 -7 4 (4 th Cir . 20 02 ). The de fen da nt s ap pe al edas t o t he fee awa rd , andth e Fo urth Cir cu itrev ers ed
. Id

. at 27 1. Th e Fo urth Cir cu ithe ldth atth e p la in ti ff was no t a p rev ai li ng pa rty becaus e th e d is tri ctco urt h adne it he r in co rp or at edth e te rm s o f an y set tl em en t i nt o i ts di sm is sa l o rd er n or

ret ai ne d ju ris di ct io n t o e nf or ce a s et tl em en t. Id. at27 8- 85
. 10Dio nn e’s ci ta ti on s t o Tr ue sdel l v. Ph il adel ph ia Hou si ng

Autho ri ty , 29 0 F .3d 15 9 (3 d C ir. 2 00 2) , and Bar ri os v. Ca li fo rn ia Int er

sc ho la st ic Fede ra ti on , 27 7 F .3d 11 28 (9t h C ir. 2 00 2) , are al so un av ai li ng . In Tr ue sdel l , a civ il rig ht s ac ti on un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, t he di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o rd er i nc or po rat edth e te rm s o f th e
se tt le m en t b etween th e p art ie s. 2 90 F.3dat 1 65 . The Th irdCir cu itrev ers edth e di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts , ho ld in g t ha t t he pl ai nt iff was t he pr ev ai li ng pa rty andth us en ti tl edto fees an d c os ts pu rs ua ntto 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 8. Id

. at16 5- 66
. In Bar ri os , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d t he pl ai nt iff’s m ot io n fo r atto rn ey ’s fees
un de r th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act(“ ADA”) be cau se ithe ldth athi s da m ag es awardwas de min imis . 27 7 F .3dat 1 13 4- 35 . The Ni nt h C irc ui t re ve rs ed , ho ld in g t ha t, as th e p art ie s h aden te redin to a le ga ll y en fo rceabl e se tt le m en t ag reem en t, t he awardwas n ot de min imis an d t he pl ai nt iff was apre va il in g p art y
en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees un de r th e ADA. Id. at 1 13 4- 37
. Dio nn e ad di ti on al ly reli es on sev eral cas es in whi ch th e co urt co ns id ered whe th er the de

fe nd an t was e nt it le d t o re co ve r atto rn ey ’s fees fro m th e pl ai nt if

f
. Fo r ex am pl e, in Cla ib or ne v. W

is do m , th e Sev en th Cir cu ithe ldth atth e d efen da nt
was en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees as t he pre va il in g p art y fol lo win g adi sm is sa l wi th pr ejud ic e due to th e p la in ti ff’s p ur su itof afri vo lo us act io n u nd er t he Fai r Hou si ng Act. 4 14 F.3d71 5, 7 21 -2 2 (7 th Cir . 20 05 ). Lik ewis e, th e co urt i n Highw ay 11Equ ip men t Co ., Inc . v. FECO, Ltd

. , con si de redwhet he r th e d efen da ntwas t he

pr ev ai li ng pa rty for p ur

po se s o f as se ss in g e nt it le m en t t o c os ts an d fe es inli gh t o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is m is sa l wi th pre jud ic e. 46 9 F .3d10 27 , 10 33 -3 7 (F ed . Cir
. 20 06 ). Dio nn e ci te s Gos s v. Ki ll ia n Oa ks Hou se of Lea rn in g , 24 8 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 16 2 (S.D. Fla . 20 03 ), to supp ort h is arg um en t t ha t the $3 ,00 0 c he cksen t t o h im by Fl oo rm as te rs co ns ti tu te d aset tl em en t, thu s re nd eri ng hi m th e p rev ai li ng pa rty. H is rel ia nc e o n Gos s is als o m is pl aced . In Gos s , th e tr ia l co urt ap pr ov eda se tt le m en t by the pa rti es . Id. at11 75 . In t hi s m at te r, ho wev er, the pa ym en t Di on ne rece iv ed fro m Flo orm as te rs was n ev er s ub m it te d a s a s ettl em en t fo r jud ic ia l ap pr ov al
. Dio nn e al so cit es Ameri ca n Disa bi li tyAss ’n v. Ch mielar z , 28 9 F .3d13 15 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) , in supp ort o f hi s ar gu m en t t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt’s d is m is sa l o f th e cas e wit h p reju di ce i s t he “ fu nc ti on al equi va le nt ” o f a co ns en t d ecre e. Thi s arg um en t i s u np ers ua si ve . In Ch miel ar z , th is Co urt s pe ci fic al ly not edth atth e di st ric t co urt h ad“ ap pr ov [ed ] th e se tt le m en t ag reem en t an d t he n e xp res sl y ret ai n[ ed ] juri sd ic ti on to en fo rce i ts term s,” wh ic h “ effe ct edpre ci se ly the same
res ul t as wou ldha ve be enach ie ve d p ur su an t t o aco ns en t d ecre e.” 2 89 F.3dat 13 21 . In t he pre se ntcas e, th e Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t ap pr ov e an y ag reem en t o r ret ai n ju ris di ct io n t o e nf

or ce an y set tl em en t o r or de r; t he parti es di d n otev enreac h a fo rm al set tl em en t ag reem en t t o p res en t t o t he co urt. The Dis tri ctCo urt’s 12m in im al pa rti ci pa ti on in th is cas e is in su ffi ci en t t o g iv e th e cas e th e “ jud ic ia l imp ri mat ur ” n eces sa ry

fora pa rty to p rev ai l. Se e Buc kh an no n , 53 2 U.S. at60 5. Dio nn e fu rth er as se rts th at , un de r Lyn n’ s Fo od St or es , Inc . v. Uni te d Sta te s , 67 9 F .2d13 50 (11 th Cir . 19 82 ), subm is si onof aform al set tl em en t ag reem en t was
no t n eces sa ry , as h e rec ei ve d p aym en t i n fu ll witho utco m pr om is e. Howev er, i n Lyn n’ s Fo od St or es , th is Co urt h el d t ha t t he de fen da ntwas l iabl e u nd er t he FLSA; th e o nl y qu es ti on at i ss ue inth atm at te r was whethe r th e d is tri ctco urt erredin refu si ng to ap pr ov e th e p art ie s s et tl em en t ag reem en t. Id

. at13 52 -5 5. Con cl us io n Whe th er Di on ne is en ti tl edto att orne y ’s fees un de r th e FLSA is a qu es ti on of st atut ory co ns tru ct io n. Se e Buc kh an no n , 53 2 U.S. 5 98 (in te rp ret in g t he feesh ift in g p ro vi si on s o f th e Fai r Hou si ng Am en dm en ts Act an d t he ADA). In
co ns tru in g ast atut e, a co urt “ as su m [es ] th atth e o rd in ary m ean in g o f th atlan gu ag e
accu rat el y

ex pr es se s the leg is la ti ve pu rp os e.” Har dt v. Reli an ce Sta nd

ar d L if e In s. Co

. , 13 0 S . Ct. 2 14 9, 2 15 6 (2 01 0) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Con gr es s h as pro vi de d t ha t th e co urt i n a n F LSA act io n “ sh al l, in ad di ti on to an

y ju dgmen t a wa rded

to th e pl ai nt if f o r p la in ti

ff s , all ow a r eas on ab le att orne y ’s fee t o b e p ai d b y th e d efen da nt , an d c os ts of t he act io n.” 29 U.S.C. § 2 16 (b ) (em ph as is ad de d) . The FLSA p la in ly requi res th atth e p la in ti ff rec ei ve a jud gm en t i n h is fav orto be en ti tl edto at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts . 13Dio nn e h as fai le d t o c it e to an y cas e th atsupp orts hi s co nt en ti on th atth e
en try of a d efen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s a p la in ti ff’s cl ai m s as m oo t b ecau se th e tri al co urt n o l on ge r ha s s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on co ns ti tu te d ajud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e p la in ti ff. As t he Supr em e Co urt o bs erv edin Buc kh an no n , un de r th e “ Am eri can Ru le ” pa rti es in li ti ga ti on are ex pe ct edto be ar t he ir o wn at to rn ey ’s fees an d c os ts . Buc kh an no n , 53 2 U.S. at60 2 (c it in g Alye sk a Pi pe li ne Se rv . Co. v. Wilderne ss So c’y , 42 1 U.S. 2 40 , 24 7 (1 97 5) , and KeyTro ni c Co rp . v. Uni te d Sta te s , 51 1 U.S. 80 9, 8 19 (19 94 )). Co ng res s m ay ab ro ga te th is rul e, ho wev er, b y ex pl ic it ly pr ov id in g o th erwi se . Buc kh an no n , 53 2 U.S. at60 2- 03 ; Jo hn so n , 34 8 F .3dat 13 50 . 29 U.S.C. § 2 16 (b ) do es so in th e co nt ex t o f th e FLSA. Se e Kr ea ge r v. So lo mon &Fla na ga n, P.A. , 77 5 F .2d15 41 , 15 42 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ) (“ [S]ecti on 21 6( b) of t he [FLSA] m ak es fee award s m an da to ry for pr eva il in g p la in ti

ff s. ”) (em ph as is ad de d)
. Dio nn e h as fai le d t o d em on st rat e th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt en te reda jud gm en t award in g h im

ov ert im e p ay . Ins te ad , th e rec or d s ho ws i t g ran te d F lo orm as te rs ’
m ot io n t o d is m is s t hi s ac ti on be cau se Dio nn e co nc ed edth atFlo orm as te rs ’ te nd er of th e am ou ntsetforth in Dio nn e’s co m pl ai nt , whi le vi go ro us ly de ny in g li ab il it y , m oo te d Di on ne ’s ov ert im e cl ai m . Dio nn e is no t a “pr ev ai li ng pa rty” inth is act io n b ecau se , in gra nt in g 14Fl oo rm as te rs ’ m ot io n t o d is m is s t hi s l aws ui t fo r la ckof s ub ject m atte r juri sd ic ti on , th e Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t awa rda jud gm en t i n h is fav or . “ W e can no t ag ree t ha t 5 th e te rm ‘ pr ev ai li ng pa rty’ au th or iz es fed eral co urts to awardatt orne y ’s fees to a pl ai nt iff who , by si m

pl y fil in g ano nf

riv ol ou s b utpo te nt ia ll y

m eri tl es s l aws ui t (i t wil l n ev er b e d et erm in ed ), ha s re ach edth e so ug ht -aft er d es ti na ti on wit ho ut ob ta in in g a ny j ud ic ia l re li ef.” Buc kh an no n , 53 2 U.S. at60 6 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n
m ark s o m it te d) . Accor di ng ly, we co nc lu de th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g Di on ne ’s m ot io n fo r th e awardof a tt orne y ’s fees an d c os ts . AFFIRMED
.

Our de cision in this m atter a ddresse s a ver y narr ow question: whether an employee who 5 conce ded that his claim should be dismissed befor e trial a s moot, when the full amount of ba ck pay was tende red, w as a pr evailingparty entitled to statutory

attorney ’s fe es under

§ 216(b). It should not be construed a s authorizing the de nial of attorne y ’s fe es, re quested by an employee, solely beca use an e mploy er te ndere d the full amount of bac k pay owingto an employee, prior to the time a jury

has re turned its verdic t, or the trial cour t has enter ed judg ment on the merits of the claim. 15