Maxwell vs. US Dept of Interior, (5th Cir. 2001)

Text

---

* Circuit Judge of the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation. * * Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-10581 JOEL F. ARNOLD; ET AL., Plaintiffs, BOBBY MAXWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:96-CV-3077-P March 19, 2001 Before FARRIS * , JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: ** Bobby Maxwell, one of three plaintiffs in a Title VII lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior, appeals the district courtÂ’s award of attorneysÂ’ fees. In the underlying lawsuit, a jury found that the U.S. Department of the Interior had discriminated against the three plaintiffs by considering race and gender in its promotions. Of the three plaintiffs, however, the district co urt found that only Bobby Maxwell was entitled to compensatory damages. The court also granted summary judgment against the other two plaintiffs on their claim of reta liation.

See Arnold v. U.S .

Dep§ 2000e-5(k).

After calculating a r evised lodestar amount, the district court reduced the fee by 35 percent, noting that the total fee award of $211,469.25 for all three plaintiffs was not reasonable due to the limited success of the lawsuit. Maxwell, the only plaintiff to appeal this ruling, now argues that the district court should have considered the plaintif fsÂ’ success on an individual basis, and should not have reduced his award, because he was fully successful in his suit.

We review the district courtÂ’s determination of an attorneysÂ’ fee award for abuse of discretion. H adley v. VAM P T S , 44 F.3d 372, (5th Cir. 1995). In determining an appropriate fee award in a situation where only some claims were successful, a district cou rt can consider the overall result obtained if the claims involve a common core of facts or related legal theories. H ensley v. Eckerhart , 461 U.S. 424, 435 (1983). Here, although there were three separ ate plaintiffs, they were represented by the same attorneys. The plaintiffs submitted a joint complaint arising out of the same core of facts and based on the same legal theories, and also submitted a joint application for attorneysÂ’ fees. Although it might have been preferable for the district court to consider attorneysÂ’ fees on an individual basis, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion by considering the fee award for the case as a whole. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the award as excessive in relation to the results obtained.

Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the total attorneysÂ’ fee award by 35 percent, the judgment of the district court is A F F I R M E D.

---