Opinion ID: 1213759
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mootness of counts I and II in view of offer of judgment

Text: Plaintiffs maintain that the district court erred in dismissing counts I and II for mootness. In particular, plaintiffs argue that the defendants' offer of judgment did not include attorneys' fees and costs. True, the defendants' offer did not offer a number certain for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. But the defendants did offer to pay costs accrued and a reasonable attorneys' fee to be determined by the court. Dellarussiani J.A. 281. Plaintiffs do not argue that they could have obtained anything more for their substantive claims in counts I and II than what the defendants offered. The only issue is whether an offer of judgment which offers to pay a reasonable attorneys' fee as later determined by the court  but which does not offer to pay whatever sum reported by opposing counsel  moots the FLSA and corresponding Ohio claim in this case. The district court noted that offers of judgment with language similar to defendants' offer have been deemed by other district courts sufficient to moot the claims at issue. See Ambalu, 194 F.R.D. at 452; see also Greisz, 176 F.3d at 1014 (defendant who offered judgment of $1,200 plus reasonable costs and attorneys' fees in a Truth in Lending Act case was offering [plaintiff] more than her claim was worth to her in a pecuniary sense). Furthermore, the FLSA does not entitle a prevailing plaintiffs' counsel to get whatever fee counsel claims. Rather, under the statute, the court ... shall ... allow a reasonable attorney's fee. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Defendants' offer to pay the reasonable attorneys' fee as determined by the court is consonant with the statutory language which requires that the court allow the reasonable fee when it awards a judgment to a FLSA plaintiff. Plaintiffs also contend that the offer did not purport to satisfy plaintiffs' claim for liquidated damages under Ohio Revised Code § 4113.15(B). However, the offer was only extended as to counts I and II. Dellarussiani J.A. 281. Count III, which entailed plaintiffs' claim to liquidated damages under Ohio law, proceeded to summary judgment. See infra Part II.D. Therefore, the district did not err when it dismissed counts I and II as moot in view of the offer of judgment.