Opinion ID: 2982668
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Arbitration of the Claims

Text: On January 11, 2012, ServiceMaster moved to compel Massaro and Yates to arbitrate their claims pursuant to the arbitration provision in the employment agreements they entered into at the beginning of their employment with ServiceMaster. The agreement provided, in relevant portions, that a third-party arbitrator would decide employment disputes and that both parties would be bound by the arbitrator’s decision. Massaro and Yates objected to the motion to compel, but on March 13, 2012, the district court granted the motion.3 The district court did not decide whether the arbitration could proceed as a collective action; it concluded that the issue was properly within the purview of the arbitrators. Massaro and Yates submitted their individual claims to the arbitrator and sought a certification of collective action. A telephonic arbitration-management conference was held on October 31, 2012. The arbitrator asked the parties to submit additional briefing regarding whether the arbitration clause permitted collective actions. The parties submitted their briefs, and on December 27, 2012, the 3 ServiceMaster did not move to compel arbitration of Smith’s claims. 3 Smith et al. v. ServiceMaster Holding Corp., et al., No. 14-5481 arbitrator entered a partial final award finding that the “arbitration agreement [did] not preclude this arbitration from proceeding on behalf of a class.” ServiceMaster then filed a motion to vacate the arbitrator’s award, which the district court denied on May 21, 2013. D. Settlements with Plaintiffs and Award of Fees and Costs Between August 16, 2013, and September 6, 2013, ServiceMaster extended Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 68 offers to Massaro, Yates, Craig, Simpkins, and Smith. After all plaintiffs accepted an offer, the district court entered judgment on each individual’s FLSA claim in the following amounts: $6,552 for Smith, $2,295.30 for Massaro, $10,733.06 for Yates, $5,137.96 for Craig, and $57,623.20 for Simpkins. Thus, Plaintiffs’ total combined recovery was $82,341.52. Plaintiffs filed a revised motion requesting $516,890.25 in attorney’s fees and $18,908.85 in costs on October 15, 2013.4 ServiceMaster objected, contesting the amount and also arguing that Plaintiffs were not prevailing parties in the collective action portion of the case and should therefore not recover fees for work done in pursuit of collective action. The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in a five-page order awarding $516,890.25 in attorney’s fees and $18,908.85 in costs.