Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 0-945 / 10-0260 Filed March 21, 2011

JULIE BOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ALUM-LINE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, John Bauercamper, Judge.

A plaintiff appeals from the district court order on remand awarding her attorney fees. AFFIRMED.

Karl G. Knudson, Decorah, for appellant. Donald H. Gloe, Decorah, for appellee.

Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ. Mansfield, J., takes no part.

2 VOGEL, P.J. In this appeal, we must determine whether the district court adequately followed our supreme court`s directive on remand to make detailed findings of fact, such that will afford effective appellate review of the district court`s previous award of attorney fees. Julie Boyle asserts the district court`s order awarding her attorney fees on her sexual-discrimination and retaliatory-discharge claims against her former employer, Alum-Line, Inc., was inadequate. She

argues that on remand, the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees, namely that it did not follow the instructions given in Boyle v. AlumLine, Inc., 773 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Iowa 2009). We conclude the district court complied with the directive and affirm. I. Background Proceedings. This litigation began in 2003 when Boyle filed a suit against her former employer, Alum-Line, alleging sexual discrimination and retaliatory discharge under the Iowa Civil Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After adverse judgments at the district court, Boyle appealed. The supreme court

initially transferred the case to this court but after our appellate decision was issued, granted further review. The supreme court reversed and remanded,

directing the district court to enter judgment in favor of Boyle on her hostile-workenvironment claims and reconsider her retaliatory discharge claim based upon the existing record, as well as determine damages. Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc. (Boyle I), 710 N.W.2d 741, 752 (Iowa 2006). On remand, the district court found Boyle was subjected to sexual harassment by her coworkers and discharged by Alum-Line in retaliation for her

3 sexual harassment complaints, and entered judgment in favor of Boyle in the amount of $100,000. Boyle filed an application for attorney fees, requesting $46,264.50 for trial attorney Mark Anderson (342.7 hours at $135 per hour), $38,6641 for trial attorney James P. Moriarty (286.4 hours at $135 per hour), and $98,793 for appellate attorney Karl G. Knudson (167.8 hours at $135 per hour for district court work and 380.7 hours at $200 per hour for appellate work), plus the attorneys` expenses. The application was supported by documentation, including affidavits and itemized billing records. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court awarded Boyle $25,000 in trial attorney fees (227.27 hours at $110 per hour) and $25,000 in appellate attorney fees (166.66 hours at $150 per hour), as well as the attorneys` expenses. Boyle appealed and asserted, in relevant part, that the district court failed to apply the proper criteria in determining reasonable attorney fees and reduced the requested fees without making specific findings of fact explaining the reductions. After the case was initially transferred to this court and our decision issued, the supreme court again granted further review. The supreme court

found the district court did not abuse its discretion in setting a reasonable attorney-fee rate of $110 per hour for trial work and $150 per hour for appellate work. Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc. (Boyle II), 773 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Iowa 2009). However, the district court had reduced the requested number of hours by

1

We note a discrepancy in the record. Moriarty`s itemized billing reflects 286.4 hours at $135 per hour, which totals $38,664, while the March 2007 order shows a total of $41,215.50, which is repeated in the supreme court`s decision Boyle v. Alum-Line, Inc. (Boyle II), 773 N.W.2d 829, 833 (Iowa 2009).

4 approximately two-thirds and the basis for the reduction was not clearly evident from the district court`s ruling. Id. The supreme court explained, In its resistance to Boyle`s application for attorney fees, Alum-Line contended the affidavits contain[ed] duplication on the part of trial counsel that was unnecessary and itemizations for matters they should not be entitled to recover fees for. The court`s ruling does not specifically address these assertions or provide any rationale for the court`s reduction in the hours requested by the plaintiff. While the court may arrive at a general conclusion that the hours expended were excessive without specifying with exactness each hour that was unreasonably spent, it still must provide [d]etailed findings of fact with regard to the factors considered [in its determination of] the attorney fee award. In this case, the court apparently concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to $25,000 in trial court attorney fees and $25,000 in appellate attorney fees. It then divided these amounts by the applicable reasonable hourly rates for trial and appellate work to determine the reasonable number of hours. While the court in its expertise may have been justified in reducing the plaintiff`s attorneys` hours, under the methodology used by the court, we cannot afford effective appellate review. Therefore, we remand this case to the district court for detailed findings of fact utilizing the factors enunciated in [Dutcher v. Randall Foods, 546 N.W.2d 889 (Iowa 1996)] to determine the reasonableness of the hours claimed by Boyle`s attorneys. Id. at 833

Download JULIE BOYLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. ALUM-LINE, INC., Defendant-Appellee..pdf

Iowa Law