NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us SJC-12602 BELKY FERMAN & another1 vs. STURGIS CLEANERS, INC., & another.2 Suffolk. December 4, 2018. - February 19, 2019. Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, Cypher, & Kafker, JJ. Massachusetts Wage Act. Practice, Civil, Attorney's fees. Civil action commenced in the Superior Court Department on November 19, 2014. Following a stipulation of dismissal, an application for attorney's fees and costs was heard by Karen F. Green, J. The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for direct appellate review. John J. McGlone, III (David T. Norton also present) for the defendants. Elizabeth Soltan (Patricio S. Rossi also present) for the plaintiffs. Joseph Michalakes & Liliana Ibara, for Immigrant Worker Center Collaborative & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. Margaret E. Monsell & Ruth A. Bourquin, for Massachusetts Law Reform Institute & another, amici curiae, submitted a brief. 1 Veronica Guillen. 2 Peter Triantos. 2 KAFKER, J. This case requires us to consider whether employees, whose claim against their employer under the Wage Act, G. L. c. 149, ยงยง 148, 150, resulted in a favorable settlement agreement and stipulation of dismissal, "prevailed" in their suit for purposes of an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Wage Act's fee-shifting provisions.3 The defendants contend that the trial judge should have applied the test for determining prevailing party status under Federal fee- shifting statutes established by Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep't of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (Buckhannon). Because Buckhannon requires a prevailing litigant to obtain judicial approval or "imprimatur" of a private settlement, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs did not prevail. Id. at 605. The plaintiffs disagree, arguing that, because we have previously decided that the Buckhannon test has no applicability to Massachusetts fee- shifting statutes, the correct standard to determine prevailing party status under the Wage Act is the "catalyst test." Under the catalyst test, if the plaintiff's lawsuit is a necessary and important factor in causing the defendant to grant a material 3 The employees brought claims under both G. L. c. 149 and G. L. c. 151, which governs payment of overtime wages. Because our analysis is the same for both fee-shifting provisions, which are identically worded, for simplicity's sake we refer to the claims as brought under the Wage Act, unless otherwise noted. 3 portion of the requested relief, a settlement agreement, even without any judicial involvement, may qualify the plaintiff as a prevailing party for fee-shifting purposes. None of the parties disputes that the plaintiffs met the catalyst test; rather, the central issue is the threshold question of the proper test to apply to determine prevailing party status ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals