Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees and costs following default judgment in an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona wage statutes. The Court awards $11,392.00 in attorney’s fees for 25.6 compensable hours at $445 per hour and $986.20 in out-of-pocket costs. It denies the request for prospective collection costs as speculative and not yet ripe.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs who obtained default judgment in their favor were prevailing parties and were eligible for and entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act.
- The reasonable attorney-fee award was $11,392.00, representing 25.6 compensable hours at a reasonable hourly rate of $445.00.
- Time spent establishing entitlement to and the amount of a statutory attorney-fee award is compensable, including time spent preparing an FLSA fee motion.
- Anticipated attorney fees and costs for future collection efforts were not recoverable because they were speculative and not ripe before being incurred.
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiffs were eligible for and entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Arizona Minimum Wage Act after obtaining default judgment.
- Whether the requested lodestar amount was reasonable under the applicable fee-shifting standards and Kerr factors.
- Whether Plaintiffs could recover anticipated attorney fees and costs for prospective collection efforts before those expenses were incurred.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (19)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 482 U.S. 755, 760 (1987)(followed)
- Six Mexican Workers v. Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1311 (9th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Welch v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 480 F.3d 942, 945-46 (9th Cir. 2007)(followed)
- Machowski v. 333 N. Placentia Prop., LLC, 38 F.4th 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2022)(followed)
- Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 1986), opinion amended on denial of reh'g, 808 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- In re Nucorp Energy, Inc., 764 F.2d 655, 659-60 (9th Cir. 1985)(followed)
- Gary v. Carbon Cycle Ariz. LLC, 398 F. Supp. 3d 468, 479 (D. Ariz. 2019)(followed)
- Intel Corp. v. Terabyte Int'l, Inc., 6 F.3d 614, 622 (9th Cir. 1993)(followed)
- Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir. 1975)(followed)
- City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557 (1992)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…