PENN v. MOTION INDUSTRIES INC (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.2021-09-02No. No. 21-2201

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court vacated the district court's reduction of the settled attorneys' fees and costs and remanded for further proceedings with adequate factual findings and legal basis, while affirming the settlement approval and case dismissal in all other respects.

Clemel Penn brought a Fair Labor Standards Act claim against Motion Industries Inc. The parties reached a settlement agreement, and Penn moved for court approval of the settlement and dismissal of the case. The district court approved the settlement and dismissed the case but reduced the attorneys' fees and costs awarded under the settlement from what the parties had agreed to $500.

Penn appealed the reduction of attorneys' fees and costs. The appellate court found that Penn had invited judicial review of the fee award by explicitly requesting court approval and addressing the reasonableness of the fees in his motion, so any error on that point could not be reversed on his initiative. However, the court determined that the district court's decision to reduce the fees lacked sufficient factual findings and legal reasoning to permit meaningful appellate review, making it impossible to determine whether the reduction constituted an abuse of discretion.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a party can appeal an error it invited by requesting judicial review
Standard for appellate review of attorneys' fees reductions in FLSA settlements
Requirement for district courts to make findings of fact and state legal reasoning for fee awards

Procedural posture

Penn appealed the district court's approval of the settlement agreement and dismissal but challenged the reduction of the agreed-upon attorneys' fees and costs.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

[Unpublished]

In this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Clemel Penn appeals after the district court granted his motion to approve the parties’ settlement agreement and to dismiss the case, but reduced the settled attorneys fees and costs. For the following reasons, we vacate the portion of the district courts order reducing the attorneys fees and costs, affirm in all other respects, and remand for further proceedings.

Although Penn argues on appeal that the district court lacked authority to review the settled attorneys fees and costs, we conclude that he invited any error because his motion invited judicial review by indicating the settlement agreement was “contingent upon court review and approval” of the terms of the agreement, and by explicitly addressing the reasonableness of the settled attorneys fees and costs. See Roth v. Homestake Mining Co. of Cal., 74 F.3d 843, 845 (8th Cir. 1996) (erroneous ruling generally does not constitute reversible error when it is invited by same party who seeks on appeal to have ruling overturned). We further conclude, however, that the record in this case is insufficient to enable a meaningful review of whether the district court abused its discretion by reducing the attorneys fees and costs to $500. See EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 944 F.3d 750, 755-56 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review); see also EEOC v. Hendrix Coll., 53 F.3d 209, 211-12 (8th Cir. 1995) (district courts failure to make findings and failure to state legal basis for attorneys fees award ordinarily necessitates remand).

Accordingly, we vacate the district courts reduction of the settled attorneys fees and costs, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, we affirm.

PER CURIAM.