International Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 217 v. G.E. Chen Construction, Inc.

MEMORANDUM *

The district court did not err by denying the defendant attorneys’ fees. Although the defendant did defeat the plaintiffs’ False Claims Act claims, the plaintiffs established all of the elements of the claim except scienter. Therefore, under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (d)(4), the claims were not “clearly frivolous, clearly vexatious or brought primarily for purposes of harassment.” 1 Nor can the defendant rely on the more lenient standard of 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (g), because it only applies when the United States actually brings the action. 2

The district court also did not err in denying attorneys’ fees to the defendant under the California Labor Code. Defendants sought attorneys’ fees only against the Union. The Union pursued only the False Claims Act claims. It was only the individual plaintiffs who alleged California Labor Code violations. The defendant cannot win attorneys’ fees against the Union under the California Labor Code because the Union did not bring claims against the defendant under the Labor Code.

The district court did not err in awarding overtime wages to the plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, despite the absence of written consent to sue. The…

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur, except as to the amount of the attorneys’ fees award. As to the amount, I respectfully dissent.

The only recovery for which the district court awarded attorneys’ fees was the FLSA award. That award was $7,897. Plaintiffs’ lawyers’ “time, to be compensated in an award, must be ‘reasonable in relation to the success achieved.” ’ 1 In this case it was not, either in relation to the $7,897, or even to the entire award of $47,993. The $836,143 lodestar amount request by the plaintiffs’ lawyers was unreasonable relative to what they won for their clients. It was reasonable relative to the $6,750,000 award they sought, but insofar as this was its purpose, the lawsuit was a failure and they were not prevailing parties. The district court stated expressly that the $7,897 FLSA recovery was the recovery the plaintiffs sought attorneys’ fees for, but made no attempt to relate the extent of the plaintiffs’ very limited success to the amount of the fee award. The failure to relate the $7,897 extent of success to the fee award is an abuse of discretion under McGinnis v. Kentucky Fried Chicken 2 and Dannenberg v. Valadez. 3 Awarding $208,173…