Opinion ID: 4519852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fees Related to Dyer Case

Text: The final issue Molina identifies with the district court’s fee award is its decision to include fees for time expended representing Appellee Dyer in her separate action against Molina. For its part, the district court would have allowed Dyer to opt in were it not for Molina’s opposition to the motion. The court therefore declined to punish Plaintiffs’ counsel for billing additional hours that were only necessary because of Molina’s tactical decision to oppose Dyer’s late opt-in. The district court further noted it was Dyer, not Plaintiffs’ counsel, who was responsible for her failure to meet the opt-in deadline. In any case, Dyer was 20 Case: 19-13965 Date Filed: 03/26/2020 Page: 21 of 21 never obligated to opt in to the original action and was free all along to bring her own case. The district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing separate fees for the Dyer action. Molina would place the lion’s share of the blame for the need to bring a separate action on Plaintiffs’ counsel, pointing to counsel’s apparent decision to wait until two months after receiving Dyer’s opt-in consent form to file a motion to allow her to join the case. But we find the district court’s contrary finding to be entirely reasonable. After all, Appellee Dyer was always free to bring her own case and to employ Plaintiffs’ attorneys as counsel. We see no reason to overturn the district court’s decision on this point and penalize Plaintiffs’ counsel for representing Dyer in a separate action.