Badon II – Fifth Circuit Re-affirms Lodestar Integrity and Rejects Per-Se Proportionality Limits on FLSA Attorney-Fee Awards

Introduction

Badon v. Berry’s Reliable Resources, L.L.C., No. 23-30345 (5th Cir. Aug. 4, 2025)—referred to here as Badon II—is the Fifth Circuit’s second published encounter with a long-running wage-and-hour dispute between hourly care-givers and their employer, Berry’s Reliable Resources (“BRR”). Whereas the first appeal (Badon I) upheld a jury verdict for unpaid overtime and related state-law claims, Badon II addresses the “post-verdict skirmishes”: (i) the reasonableness of $188,164.32 in attorney’s fees and costs, (ii) the employer’s attempt to derail garnishment and stay execution of the judgment, and (iii) renewed, threadbare due-process challenges.

The Court—Judges Wiener, Willett, and Ho, per curiam—concludes that the district court:

• faithfully applied the lodestar methodology and the Johnson factors,
• acted within its discretion in enforcing the judgment through garnishment, and
• committed no constitutional error.

In doing so, the panel re-emphasises two doctrinal points that will reverberate in wage-and-hour and fee-shifting litigation throughout the circuit:

1. The lodestar remains the “touchstone”; proportionality between damages and fees is not mandatory, and downward adjustments for alleged “simplicity” risk impermissible double counting.
2. A $300 hourly rate for experienced FLSA practitioners in the Eastern District of Louisiana is presumptively reasonable, especially when the opponent’s own obstruction materially inflates litigation time.

Summary of the Judgment

After prevailing on 20 of 21 claims at trial, the employee-plaintiffs sought liquidated damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The magistrate judge calculated a lodestar of $211,234.50, trimmed hourly rates from $350 to $300, subtracted 10％ of time for insufficient billing judgment, and recommended $188,164.32. The district judge adopted that recommendation.

BRR appealed, advancing three principal arguments:

1. The fees were excessive—rates too high, hours bloated, and awards disproportionate to the $122,700.91 judgment.
2. The district court abused its discretion by issuing (and refusing to quash) a writ of garnishment and by denying a Rule 62 stay.
3. Unspecified due-process violations infected the underlying proceedings.

The Fifth Circuit rejected each contention and affirmed in full.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The panel’s reasoning weaves together a familiar constellation of fee-shifting authorities:

• Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974)
  • Sets out twelve discretionary factors that may warrant adjusting the lodestar.
  • The Court underscores that many Johnson factors (e.g., complexity, novelty) are already subsumed in the lodestar, so re-applying them can be “impermissible double counting” (Heidtman).
• Jimenez v. Wood County, 621 F.3d 372 (5th Cir. 2010)
  • Articulates the two-step lodestar process and the duty to excise “excessive, duplicative, or inadequately documented” hours.
• Walker v. City of Mesquite, 313 F.3d 246 (5th Cir. 2002)
  • Authorises percentage reductions where billing judgment is lacking; the district court used a 10 ％ cut here.
• Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council, 478 U.S. 546 (1986) & Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984)
  • Reinforce that lodestar ordinarily reflects case complexity; extra adjustments require compelling justification.
• Migis v. Pearle Vision, 135 F.3d 1041 (5th Cir. 1998) vs. Gurule v. Land Guardian, 912 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2018)
  • Migis once reversed a fee 6.5× damages; Gurule clarified that Migis does not impose a hard proportionality cap. Badon II echoes Gurule, emphasising the plaintiffs’ broad success (20 of 21 claims).
• Diaz v. Robert Ruiz, Inc., 808 F.2d 427 (5th Cir. 1987)
  • Confirms that time on inter-related non-FLSA issues is compensable; critical because state-law wage claims overlapped.
• Jurisdiction & Stay precedents – Morrow v. Jones, 140 F.4th 257 (5th Cir. 2025); United States v. Branham, 690 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 2012); MM Steel, 771 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2014).
  • Distinguish reviewability of garnishment orders from non-final denials of motions to quash; confirm abuse-of-discretion standard for Rule 62 stays.

Legal Reasoning

1. Hourly Rate
   • Plaintiffs requested $350; magistrate lowered to $300 after consulting affidavits, local market data, and the Fifth Circuit’s own April 2025 fee order in Badon I.
   • Employer offered no contrary evidence; panel deems $300 “presumptively reasonable” for seasoned FLSA counsel in New Orleans.
2. Hours Reasonably Expended
   • District court meticulously reviewed contemporaneous time sheets; because billing judgment was imperfect, it trimmed 10 ％ (≈67 hours).
   • BRR’s litigation conduct—“frivolous and often wasteful”—prolonged discovery and motion practice; fee applicant should not be penalised for hours needed to fend off such tactics.
3. Johnson Adjustment & Proportionality
   • Court refuses to revisit “simplicity” of issues; complexity already baked into lodestar.
   • Reminds—citing Gurule—that proportionality is informative, not dispositive; no “mathematical limit” binds district courts.
   • Plaintiffs’ DoS (20/21 claims) justifies full lodestar.
4. Garnishment & Stay
   • Fifth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review denial of motion to quash writ (non-final), but does review denial of Rule 62 stay.
   • BRR’s earlier stay motions were denied; Coinbase-based reconsideration was waived/forfeited. District court did not abuse its discretion.
5. Due Process
   • Three-sentence allegation, no record cites; deemed either (i) previously rejected and therefore foreclosed, or (ii) forfeited for inadequate briefing.

Likely Impact of the Judgment

• Rate Benchmarking – $300/hour now carries strong precedential weight for Eastern District of Louisiana FLSA matters; litigants may reference Badon II directly.
• Deterrence of “Proportionality” Arguments – Defense counsel often urge courts to tether fees to damages. Badon II fortifies plaintiffs’ tool-kit by reiterating that the Fifth Circuit has “no per se requirement.”
• Billing-Judgment Signals – The panel’s endorsement of a modest 10 ％ haircut (instead of draconian reductions) offers district courts a calibrated model when billing records are imperfect but not abusive.
• Jurisdictional Clarity on Garnishment Appeals – Practitioners now have fresh guidance: an order granting a writ is reviewable; an order denying a motion to quash is not—though a Rule 62 stay is separately appealable.
• Litigation Conduct as a Fee Multiplier – Badon II implicitly warns defendants that obstruction may backfire by inflating compensable hours.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Lodestar – A two-step formula: (1) reasonable hours × reasonable rate = “lodestar,” (2) court may adjust up/down using Johnson factors. Think of it as the “base fare” for legal work.
• Johnson Factors – Twelve discretionary considerations (e.g., novelty, skill, results). But many overlap with the lodestar, so double counting must be avoided.
• Proportionality – The idea that fees should mirror or not greatly exceed damages. Badon II reiterates it is advisory, not mandatory.
• Rule 62 Stay – Allows a judgment debtor to pause collection while pursuing appeal—usually by posting supersedeas bond. Denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
• Garnishment – A post-judgment collection tool that seizes funds in the hands of a third party (here, the Louisiana Department of Health) to satisfy the judgment.

Conclusion

Badon II cements two practical lessons for Fifth Circuit litigants: the lodestar remains king, and proportionality arguments—though not irrelevant—rarely dethrone it where plaintiffs achieve broad success. By approving a $300 hourly rate and over 600 hours of work after modest trimming, the Court illustrates a balanced, evidence-driven approach that rewards diligent advocacy and discourages dilatory defense tactics. On the collection side, the opinion clarifies appellate jurisdiction over garnishment and reinforces the high bar for stays absent a supersedeas bond. Altogether, Badon II strengthens employees’ ability to recover full attorney’s fees in FLSA and parallel state-law wage cases, shaping fee-shifting jurisprudence in the Fifth Circuit for years to come.