N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N
UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT

DENNIS TALLM AN, Individua l ly a nd on be ha lf of a ll othe rs sim ila rly situa te d , Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e ,

v. C PS SEC UR ITY (USA), INC ., e t al. ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 14-16508

D.C . No. 2:09-c v-00944-PM PPAL

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Sta t e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Phillip Pro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

5, 2016 Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia
B e fore : B ER

ZON, a nd N.R

. SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s, a nd ZOUHAR Y, * * Distric t Judge

. 

# FIL ED

JUL 25 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is n o t pr ec e de n t e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** T h e Honora

ble Ja c k Z o uh ar y, U n i t ed S t at es D i s t r ict J u dg e f o r t h e N o r t h er n Distric t of Ohio, sitting by de signa tion.The distric t c ourt did n o t a buse its disc re tion in de c lining to im pose sa nc tions
unde r 28 U.S.C

. § 1 9 2 7 a nd i n de c lining to re duc e t he a ttorne y fe e a wa rd unde r the
Fa ir La bor Sta n da

rds Ac t (“ FLSA” ) t o a c c ount for c ounse l’ s m isc onduc t a t tria l. W e

a ffirm

. 1. The pa

rtie s dispute whet h er r eck le ssne ss a lone is suffic ie nt to im pose

sa nc tions unde r S ec tion 1 9 27, or whe the r “ som e thing m ore ” is re quire d, suc h a s knowle dge , frivolousne ss or ba d fa ith. As this C ourt ha s pre viously re c ogniz e d, our

c a se s “ ha ve be e n le ss th an a m ode l of c la rity ” on this issue

. B.K

.B. v
. Maui Polic e D ep ’ t , 276 F.3d 1091, 1107 (9th C ir. 2002). R e ga rdle ss of the prope r s ta

nda rd, the
distric t c o urt did not e rr in de c lining to im pose sa nc tions in this c a se
. Although the c ourt re pe a te dly rule d e vide nce r e la t e d t o o the r la wsuits
ina d m issible , it a lso sta

te d on the re c ord tha

t t he introduc tion of Exhibit 528 by C PS
Se c urity “ ope n[e d] t

he door on the se la

wsuits.” The c ourt la te r a lso a c knowle dge d in
its Orde r de ny ing sa

nc tions tha t Ta llm a n’ s a ttorne y “ re a sona bly m a y ha ve b el ie v e d

t he C ourt’ s c om

m e nts a pprove d of i nquiry in this a re a d e s pite t he C ou r t ’s p r i o r rulings.” R e c kle ssne s s req u i r es “ m u c h m ore tha

n m e re n e g lige nc e : it is a gross de via tion from w ha t a re a sona b le pe rson would do.” B la c k’ s Law D i ct io na ry (9th

e d.). W h i le a m ore prude n t c ourse of a c tion e xiste d ( i.e

. , se e king c la rific a tion from
the c ourt be

fore pursuing the line of inquiry in front of t h e j ury ), t he c ourt’ s

2d ete rm ina tion tha t Ta llm a n’ s a ttorne y did not be ha ve “ unre a sona bly

. . . gi v en t h e

c onte xt of the tria l” pre c lude s a finding of re c kle ssne ss— le t a l one “ som e thing m ore .” Though a le ss ge ne rous c ourt m ight ha ve rule d d iffe re ntly , we c a nnot sa y the c ourt he re c le a rly

e rre d in re a c hing its c onc lusion.
2. The FLSA p rovide s a distric t c ourt “ sha l l .

. . a llow a re a sona ble a ttorne y ’ s fe e ” a nd c osts to be pa id by a d e fe nda nt to a pre v a iling pla intiff. 29 U .S.C

. § 216(b).
To c a lc ula te a re a sona

ble fe e , c ourts be gin b y m ultiplyi n g the num

be r of hours

re a s ona bly e xp en d ed i n litiga

ting the c a se by a re a sona ble hourly ra te

— a n a m ount known a s the l ode s ta

r. C ourts e xc lude a ny hours tha t we re not “ re a sona bly e xpe nde d”
be c a use the y we re “ e xc e ssive , re dunda nt, or othe rwise unne c e ssa ry ,” a n d “ [ q ] ua lity
of re pre se nta tion is ge ne ra lly c o n side re d a t t he lode sta

r sta ge .” Van G e rw e n v
. Guarante e Mut. Life C

o. , 214 F.3d 1041, 1045–46 (9th C ir. 2000) (c ita tions o m itte d).

Ta llm a n did n ot re que st, a nd the d i s t ric t c o urt did not a wa rd, a ny fe e s for the

a ttorne y who c a

use d the m i stria l, o r a ny fe e s for a ny a ttorne y re l a te d to tria l tim e
. Ins t ead , t h e fe e a

pplic a tion sought only fe e s for tim e spe nt by Ta llm a n’ s two othe r

a ttorne y s a nd a pa

ra l e ga l on disc ove ry , m otions pra c tic e (e xc luding uns uccessful

m otions), m e dia t ion, a

nd othe r pre -tria l pre pa

ra t ion. On his own initia

t ive , T al l m an furthe r re duc e d the re que ste d hours by be twe e n te n a nd thirty pe rc e nt. De spite C PS

3Se c urity ’ s a rgum e n ts to the c ontra ry , “ the m a in purpose of fe e -shifting sta t ute s is not
to punish or re wa rd a ttorne y s , ” b u t “ to e na ble p riva te pa

rtie s to obta in le g a l he lp in

se e k ing re dre ss for i njurie s re s ulting from t he a c t ua l or thre a te ne d viola

tion of spe c ific
fe de ra l la ws.” Id. a t 1047 (inte rna l quota tion m a rks a nd c ita

tion om i tte d). The distric t

c ourt d id not a

b use its disc re tion in de c lining to furthe r re duc e Ta llm a n’ s a ttorne y fe e

a wa rd in light of the

m istria l.
AFFIRM E D.

4