Mark Zastrow v. Houston Auto M. Imp. Greenw

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 5, 2018
• Docket: 17-20680
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 17-20680 Document: 00514629044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2018

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

No. 17-20680 FILED September 5, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce MARK ZASTROW; HEIGHTS AUTOHAUS, Clerk

Plaintiffs – Appellees,

v.

HOUSTON AUTO M. IMPORTS GREENWAY, LIMITED, doing business as Mercedes-Benz of Houston Greenway,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-574

Before KING, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* This is the third appeal in this case and the second appeal on the attorneys’ fees award. Zastrow originally brought RICO claims and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982. Zastrow v. Hous. Auto Imports Greenway Ltd., 789 F.3d 553, 557 (5th Cir. 2015). The district court granted

* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 17-20680 Document: 00514629044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2018

No. 17-20680 summary judgment to Houston Auto M. Imports, Ltd. d/b/a Mercedes–Benz of Houston Greenway, and in the first appeal, we affirmed except as to the summary judgment on the § 1981 claims, which we vacated and remanded. Id. In the second appeal, Mercedes Greenway appealed the district court’s award of $939.29 in damages and $110,000 in attorneys’ fees on the § 1981 claims. Zastrow v. Hous. Auto M. Imports Greenway, Ltd., 695 F. App’x 774, 777 (5th Cir. 2017). We affirmed the judgment on liability but held that the district court’s attorneys’ fees calculation was inadequate because it failed to consider “Zastrow’s degree of success.” Id. at 776, 779. We vacated the award and remanded the case with the instruction that: “we leave it to the district court to determine what impact, if any, Zastrow’s degree of success has on its award of attorneys’ fees.” Id. at 779. On remand, the district court left intact its prior award and added to it the attorneys’ fees expended on the appeal. The district court made findings explaining its award as follows: “The court concludes that the reputation of the attorneys representing the plaintiff is above reproach and, coupled with his experience and skills and the plaintiffs’ degree of success.” While a more robust explanation than the one given would have been preferable and advisable, we nevertheless hold that there is no reversible error here. AFFIRMED.