Posts tagged "0903617"

Schiefer, et al. v. Bain Capital, LP (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-036-17)

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT Civ. No. 2015-3599 BLS 2 ASHLEY SCHIEFER, COLLEEN MCPHERSON, ELIZABETH BURNHAM, and REBECCA SHAAL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. BAIN CAPITAL, LP, f/k/a BAIN CAPITAL, LLC , Defendants MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF ASHLEY SCHIEFER’S APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES On August 21, 2017, Ashley Schiefer, one of four plaintiffs in this putative class action suit alleging failure to pay overtime wages, accepted a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment made by defendant Bain Capital LP (Bain). In addition to an $ 80,000 payment to Schiefer, the Offer of Judgment provided for “reasonable costs and attorney’s fees” together with interest “as awarded by the Court.” Schiefer now asks that this Court award her attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $ 125,488.13. 1 The defendant asks that I reduce the award to $ 26,225.50. After careful review of the materials submitted in support of the application, this Court allows fees and costs in the amount requested by plaintiff. The Amended Complaint asserts both common law claims and statutory ones. Bain first argues that it should not have to pay any attorney’s fees since, after the Offer of Judgment was extended, Schiefer took the position that she was waiving her statutory claim because of a 1 The application originally requested $ 122,788.13. Counsel filed a $ 2,700 supplement to that request for work performed in connection with the hearing on the application. 2 statute of limitations problem, proceeding instead on a common law theory of breach of contract. Certainly, had Schiefer prevailed on her common law claim after trial, she would not have been entitled to recover her litigation expenses. But the Offer expressly included an award of fees, and attached no conditions to that except that the fees be reasonable. In a supplemental pleading filed after the hearing on this Motion, Bain appears to suggest that it was misled about the basis of Schiefer’s claims. But Bain had to have known about the statute of limitations problem. Moreover, Schiefer’s answers to interrogatories about the damages she was seeking describe damages that are of the type that would be recoverable on a common law claim, not on the statutory claim. In short, there was no unfair surprise. This Court also is not persuaded that counsel had some obligation to segregate out what work was spent on Schiefer’s common law claim and what work was attributable to her statutory claim. As plaintiff spells out in her Reply Memorandum, Scheifer’s breach of contract claim was based on the same core of facts as her statutory claim and indeed required that she prove she was “eligible” for overtime – […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - November 4, 2017 at 1:21 am

Categories: News   Tags: , , , , ,