Llora v. H K Research Corp ( 1998 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    ANNA M. LLORA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                                                    No. 98-1484
    H. K. RESEARCH CORPORATION,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
    Graham C. Mullen, District Judge.
    (CA-93-15-5-MU)
    Submitted: October 6, 1998
    Decided: November 16, 1998
    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
    PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by unpublished
    per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    Oma H. Hester, Jr., Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellant. E. Mur-
    ray Tate, Jr., Kevin C. McIntosh, TATE, YOUNG, MORPHIS,
    BACH & TAYLOR, L.L.P., Hickory, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Anna Llora appeals the district court's order awarding counsel
    attorney's fees in the amount of $1352.39, and the district court's fail-
    ure to rule on Llora's motion for costs. We affirm the district court's
    award of attorney's fees, and remand in order for the district court to
    rule on the motion for costs.
    Llora filed this action against her former employer, H K Research
    Corporation (HK), asserting several claims regarding her compensa-
    tion for and discharge from employment. Llora prevailed on two of
    her three counts, but was only awarded $4061.22, after requesting
    over $20,000. Llora's counsel filed a post-trial motion for attorney's
    fees and expenses, setting forth 94.42 hours of attorney time at $90.00
    per hour, for a claimed fee of $8,497.80, and costs totaling $650.79.
    The district court awarded $1353.74 in attorney's fees, stating as its
    reasoning only that attorney's fee awards should bear a reasonable
    relation to the results in the case. On appeal, this court vacated and
    remanded the district court's order, holding that the district court
    abused its discretion by failing to use the lodestar method to deter-
    mine the proper fee amount, and by failing to provide a detailed
    explanation of the factors it considered in making the award.
    On remand, the district court considered the factors outlined in
    Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 
    488 F.2d 714
    , 717-19 (5th Cir.
    1974), and awarded Llora attorney's fees in the amount of $1352.39.
    Llora timely appealed.
    This court reviews an award of attorney's fees and costs for abuse
    of discretion. See Brodziak v. Runyon, 
    145 F.3d 194
    , 196 (4th Cir.
    1998). A request for attorney's fees should not result in a "second
    major litigation," and this court affords considerable discretion to the
    district court in fixing attorney's fees. See Hensley v. Eckerhart, 
    461 U.S. 424
    , 437 (1983).
    2
    We find that the district court properly considered the twelve fac-
    tors used to determine a reasonable fee. See Brodziak, 
    145 F.3d at 196
    ; McDonnell v. Miller Oil Co., 
    134 F.3d 638
    , 640 (4th Cir. 1998).
    Further, the district court correctly placed emphasis on the fact that
    Llora's success on her claims was very limited, that she was only
    awarded $4061.22 after having requested over $20,000 in damages,
    and that Llora lost on her retaliatory discharge claim, which took up
    the bulk of counsel's time and which also formed the bulk of Llora's
    request for damages. See Hensley, 
    461 U.S. at 436-37
    ; Brodziak, 
    145 F.3d at 197
    . The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in
    determining the fee amount.
    However, it appears from the record that the district court
    neglected to rule on Llora's motion for costs and expenses in the
    amount of $650.79. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's award
    of attorney's fees, and we vacate and remand in order for the district
    court to rule on the motion for costs and expenses. We grant HK's
    motion to submit on the briefs because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
    ment would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART
    3