Date: 08-11-2007

Case Style: Sylvester Jones v. United Space Alliance, LLC

Case Number: 06-14618

Judge: Kravitch

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on appeal from the Middle District of Florida (Orange County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown

Defendant's Attorney: Unknown

Description:

Appellant United Space Alliance ("USA") appeals the district court's denial of attorneys' fees. Appellee Sylvester Jones sued USA in Florida state court asserting both federal and state employment discrimination claims. USA removed the case to federal court and eventually won summary judgment on all counts. This court affirmed the judgment, and USA sought attorneys' fees under Florida's offer-of-judgment statute, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.79. The district court denied attorneys' fees, finding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 ("Rule 68") preempted the state law and on the alternative ground that § 768.79 is preempted by a federal attorneys' fee statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that controlling Florida caselaw prevents USA's recovery of attorneys' fees under § 768.79, and we therefore affirm the district court's order.

I. BACKGROUND

Jones sued USA in Florida state court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., ("Title VII") and the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla Stat. Ann. §§760.01-.11, ("FCRA"). He alleged that he was (1) terminated because of his race and religion and (2) subjected to a hostile work environment on account of his religion. After removing the case to federal court, USA served Jones with an offer of judgment pursuant to Florida law that provides for recovery of "reasonable costs and attorney's fees" from the date of the offer "if the judgment is one of no liability or the judgment obtained by the plaintiff is at least twenty-five percent less" than the offer. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.79.

Jones did not accept the offer of $2,500, and USA was later awarded summary judgment on all counts.1 USA moved for attorneys' fees under § 768.79, but the district court dismissed the motion without prejudice pending Jones's appeal before this court. After this court affirmed the judgment,2 USA again moved for attorneys' fees, arguing that they were mandatory under § 768.79 and that Rule 68 did not "impermissibly conflict" with § 768.79.3

The district court denied USA's motion. The court adopted a magistrate's report in another case before it, finding that Rule 68 preempts § 768.79.4 The report held that Rule 68 "directly collides" with § 768.79 because the defendant would be entitled to attorneys' fees under § 768.79 but not under the Federal Rule. The report further found that both Rule 68 and § 768.69 were designed to accomplish the same goal of early settlement to avoid litigation and so Rule 68 was broad enough to "control the issue." The district court accepted the report's conclusions and denied USA's request for attorneys' fees because Rule 68 does not allow for recovery when the defendant obtains a judgment in its favor. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. August, 450 U.S. 346, 352, 101 S. Ct. 1146, 1150 (1981) (holding that Rule 68 is inapplicable to cases where the defendant obtained judgment).

The district court also accepted the magistrate's recommendation that § 768.79 conflicts with and is preempted by 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because § 768.79 cannot be applied if it violates Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, which limits a defendant's recovery of attorneys' fees in civil rights cases to those claims that are "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." 434 U.S. 412, 421, 98 S. Ct. 694, 700 (1977).5

* * *

Outcome: For foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s order denying USA attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None