UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, │ Petitioner, │ > Nos. 21-2664/2690 │ v. │ │ BANNUM, INC; BANNUM PLACE OF SAGINAW, LLC, │ │ Respondents. ┘

On Motion for Attorney Fees. Nos. 07-CA-207685; 07-CA-211090; 07-CA-215356.

Decided and Filed: May 17, 2024

Before: MOORE, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL ON MOTION AND REPLY: Shawnnell T. Barnett, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Washington, D.C., for NLRB. ON RESPONSE: Frank T. Mamat, DINSMORE & SHOHL, LLP, Troy, Michigan for Bannum.

The court delivered a PER CURIAM order. NALBANDIAN, J. (pp. 10–11), delivered a separate opinion dissenting in part. _________________

ORDER _________________

PER CURIAM. On February 23, 2024, we held Bannum, Inc. and Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC (collectively “Bannum”) in civil contempt and ordered Bannum to pay to the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) reasonable attorney fees. The NLRB now seeks Nos. 21-2664/2690 Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC v. NLRB Page 2

$14,872.80 in attorney fees. For the following reasons, we GRANT in full the NLRB’s request, and we order Bannum to pay the NLRB attorney fees in the amount of $14,872.80.

I.

After unlawfully terminating two employees in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, Bannum was ordered to pay $112,476.53, plus interest and tax offsets, to make the two employees whole.1 See NLRB v. Bannum, Inc., 93 F.4th 973, 977 (6th Cir. 2024) (per curiam) (discussing the procedural history). Following Bannum’s failure to satisfy its backpay obligations, we issued a protective restraining order in July 2023 prohibiting Bannum from disposing of its assets and aiming to ensure Bannum’s ability to satisfy its liabilities. NLRB v. Bannum, Inc., 2023 WL 4842837 (6th Cir. July 27, 2023). On February 23, 2024, we held Bannum in civil contempt for failing to comply with that protective restraining order.2 Bannum, 93 F.4th at 984. “Given Bannum’s repeated contumacious conduct,” we ordered Bannum, as relevant here, “to pay to the NLRB all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees, calculated at the prevailing market rate in Washington, D.C., incurred by the NLRB in the investigation, preparation, presentation, and final disposition of [the contempt] motion.” Id. at 982, 984. We further ordered that “[a]ll of said costs . . . shall be fixed by further order of this court upon submission by the NLRB of a certified statement of such costs and expenses.” Id. at 984. On March 8, 2024, the NLRB filed a statement of attorney fees with attached declarations by Pia Winston and Shawnnell T. Barnett, the two attorneys who worked on the contempt motion. D. 69 (Pet’r V.S.) (6th Cir. Mar. 8, 2024).

On March 21, 2024, thirteen days after the NLRB filed its motion and statement of attorney fees, Bannum filed objections to the attorney fees. D. 70 (Resp’t Opp’n Mot.) (6th Cir. Mar. 21, 2024). Pursuant to Rule 27 of the Federal Rules of Appellate P