United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division
R. READE, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................
Fees Requests .....................................
matter before the court is Defendant CRST Van Expedited,
Inc.'s (“CRST”) “Motion for a
Supplemental Fee Award” (“Motion”) (docket
RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
factual underpinnings of the sexual harassment and
retaliation allegations underlying this litigation have been
well-documented by the court and appellate courts. See,
e.g., CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. E.E.O.C., ___
U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1642 (2016); E.E.O.C. v. CRST Van
Expedited, Inc., 679 F.3d 657 (8th Cir. 2012). On August
1, 2013, this court entered an Order, awarding costs and
attorneys' fees to CRST in the amount of $4, 694, 442.14.
See August 1, 2013 Order (docket no. 400) at 40.
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) appealed this court's fee award, and
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded
several fee issues for further proceedings. See E.E.O.C.
v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 774 F.3d 1169, 1185 (8th
Cir. 2014). The Eighth Circuit stated that, on remand, the
court “must individually assess each of the claims for
which it granted summary judgment to CRST on the merits and
explain why it deem[ed] a particular claim to be frivolous,
unreasonable, or groundless.” Id. The Eighth
Circuit also stated that, under Eighth Circuit precedent at
the time, CRST was not a prevailing party entitled to a fee
award as to sixty-seven of the EEOC's claims because the
court's dismissal of those claims for failure to fulfill
presuit obligations was not a merits decision. Id.
remand, this court directed the parties to brief the issues
remanded by the Eighth Circuit. See May 19, 2015
Order (docket no. 410) at 1. In particular, this court stated
that the briefs must contain “a detailed breakdown of
each individual claim for which CRST requests attorneys'
fees and costs” and “an analysis of how each
individual claim constitutes a ‘frivolous,
unreasonable, or groundless' claim.” Id.
On July 31, 2015, CRST filed its brief (“CRST Remand
Brief”) (docket no. 416) exhaustively detailing, over
the course of approximately 170 pages, the reasons why it
viewed each individual claim as frivolous, unreasonable or
groundless. See generally CRST Remand Brief. On
September 15, 2015, the EEOC filed its brief (“EEOC
Remand Brief”) (docket no. 423), arguing that the
claims were not frivolous, unreasonable or groundless for
four broad reasons, and organizing the individual women under
these reasons. See, e.g., EEOC Remand Brief at
to CRST filing the CRST Remand Brief, on July 10, 2015, the
EEOC filed a “Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant
to Rule 60(b)(6)” (“Rule 60(b) Motion”)
(docket no. 414). In the Rule 60(b) Motion, the EEOC argued
that the court should grant it post-judgment relief as to the
sixty-seven claims dismissed for failure to comply with
presuit requirements, revive the claims and set the matter
for trial based on the Supreme Court's decision in
Mach Mining, LLC v. EEOC, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 135
S.Ct. 1645 (2015). See Rule 60(b) Motion at 2-3. In
particular, the EEOC argued that Mach Mining
constituted a change in the law following this court's
dismissal of the sixty-seven claims for failure to fulfill
presuit requirements and that other circumstances existed to
justify such post-judgment relief. See generally
Brief in Support of the Rule 60(b) Motion (docket no. 414-1).
On December 14, 2015, the court issued an Order (docket no.
441) denying the Rule 60(b) Motion. See December 14,
2015 Order at 8. The court found that Mach Mining
did not constitute a change in the law as it pertained to
this case because Mach Mining forbids courts from
“inquiring into the sufficiency of the conciliation
process itself, ” which the court did not do in the
instant action. Id. at 5. Instead, the court
“found that no investigation or conciliation with
respect to the [sixty-seven] individual claims occurred at
all.” Id. Furthermore, the court found that
Mach Mining's holding was limited to those
circumstances where a district court ...