Sally Hatfield v. Prime Staff Holdings, LLC

Case: 16-10054 Date Filed: 06/29/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10054
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:11-cv-00416-WTH-PRL
SALLY HATFIELD,
and similarly situated individuals,
TRACI IVELENE GLAUSIER,
and similarly situated individuals,
LAUREN MCCLAIN,
COELEEN BENDER,
KEN KEYES, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
versus
A+ NURSETEMPS, INC.,
a Florida for profit corporation doing business as
Nursetemps, Inc.,
Defendant,
PRIME STAFF HOLDINGS, LLC,
STAFF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Case: 16-10054 Date Filed: 06/29/2016 Page: 2 of 3
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 29, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from a supplemental proceeding under Rule 69, Fed. R.
Civ. P., brought by Plaintiffs-Appellees to enforce a judgment under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (“FLSA”)—originally against A+ Nursetemps—against Defendants-
Appellants Prime Staff Holdings, LLC, and Staff America, Inc., under a theory of
FLSA successor liability. The district court concluded that Defendants-Appellants
were liable for the judgment as successors of A+ Nursetemps. We affirmed the
district court on appeal. Hatfield v. Prime Staff Holdings, LLC, No. 15-12280,
manuscript op. at 3, 17–18 (11th Cir. June 3, 2016).
Following entry of judgment in the Rule 69 proceeding, the district court
awarded Plaintiffs-Appellees attorney’s fees and costs under Fla. Stat.
§ 56.29(11). 1 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a) (providing that state-law procedures apply
in proceedings supplementary unless a federal statute governs). In this appeal,
1
“Costs for proceedings supplementary shall be taxed against the defendant as well as all
other incidental costs determined to be reasonable and just by the court including, but not limited
to, docketing the execution, sheriff’s service fees, and court reporter’s fees. Reasonable
attorney’s fees may be taxed against the defendant.” Fla. Stat. § 56.29(11).
2
Case: 16-10054 Date Filed: 06/29/2016 Page: 3 of 3
Defendants-Appellants contest the district court’s authority to make the award,
arguing that Florida law precludes an award of attorney’s fees and costs against
impleaded third-party defendants. See, e.g., Kingston Corp. Grp. of Fla., Inc. v.
Richard Kleiber Walter Kleiber P’ship, 127 So. 3d 802, 804 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2013) (“In [proceedings supplementary], attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded
only against the original judgment debtor—not against any impleaded parties.”). In
lieu of filing a responsive brief, Plaintiffs-Appellees have filed a confession of
error.
Pursuant to Plaintiffs-Appellees’ confession of error, the judgment of the
district court awarding costs and attorney’s fees is VACATED, and this case is
REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings as may be necessary
under the circumstances.
3