Frederick Michele Brady v. Patenaude & Felix, A Professional Corporation ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FREDERICK MICHELE BRADY, Case No. 18-cv-07305-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 12 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 13 PATENAUDE & FELIX and MICHAEL R. BOULANGER, Re: Dkt. No. 28 14 Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff Frederick Michele Brady prevailed in this Fair Debt Collection Practices 17 Act case and is entitled to attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Brady accepted 18 defendants’ $2,001.00 offer of judgment under Rule 68 but the parties have since failed to 19 reach an agreement as to a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees. Dkt. Nos. 25, 26, 28. 20 Plaintiffs request a total of $20,330.05 in costs and fees, including time spent on briefing 21 this issue, and defendants argue that $6,202.50 is the reasonable amount. Dkt. Nos. 28, 30, 22 31. The Court FINDS that plaintiff’s counsels’ total time spent on this case was 23 reasonable but that the hourly rate requested for Brady’s attorneys is not reasonable 24 relative to prevailing market rates. The Court therefore awards plaintiff’s counsel 25 $14,765.05 in attorneys’ fees and costs. 26 I. Background 27 Brady filed his complaint in December 2018. Dkt. No. 1. Brady also filed a 1 their answer in this case in April 2019. Dkt. No. 11. Brady amended his complaint, due to 2 inadvertently omitting information in the original, and defendants answered the amended 3 complaint. Dkt. Nos. 15, 18. The parties engaged in some discovery. In July 2019, Brady 4 accepted the defendants’ $2,001.00 offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68. Dkt. No. 25. 5 Plaintiff requests a total of $20,330.05 in costs and fees. Dkt. Nos. 28, 31. This 6 sum consists of 23.4 hours worked by attorney Fred W. Schwinn at a rate of $650 per hour 7 (totaling $15,210) and 8.4 hours worked by attorney Raeon R. Roulston at a rate of $550 8 per hour (totaling $4,620), plus $500.05 in costs. Id. 9 II. Legal Standard 10 If a debt collector violates the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act, it is liable for costs and 11 reasonable attorneys’ fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3); Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788.17, 12 178830(c). Whether attorneys’ fees are reasonable is determined by the “lodestar” 13 method, which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by a 14 reasonable hourly rate. City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 559 (1992); Chavez v. 15 City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal. 4th 970, 985 (2010). 16 III. Discussion 17 A. Hours Worked 18 The fee-seeking party has the initial burden to show that the hours expended on the 19 case were reasonable, using time records documenting what tasks were completed. 20 Hensley v. Eckhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983); Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 480 21 F.3d 942, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2017). The opposing party then has the burden of challenging 22 the hours charged by specifically identifying defects in the requested hours; conclusory or 23 unsubstantiated objections to the hours charged are insufficient. Cancio v. Fin. Credit 24 Network, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-03744-THE, 2005 WL 1629808, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 25 2005). The Court also conducts an independent review of the hours expended for 26 reasonableness. McGrath v. County of Nevada, 67 F.3d 248, n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). 27 Plaintiff’s counsel submitted billing records accounting for a total of 31.8 hours 1 argue that this number of hours is unreasonable and excessive. Dkt. No. 30. Defendants 2 point to other cases involving default judgments, arguing that the amount of work 3 performed in those cases is similar to that performed here (essentially, a complaint and 4 motion for fees). Id. at 15. Defendants cite to cases involving the same plaintiff’s counsel 5 that resulted in default judgments and that awarded fees for between 9.5 and 15.4 hours of 6 work, suggesting that “the appropriate hours should be somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 9.5 hours to 15.4 hours, plus an additional hour to prepare cookie cutter discovery 8 requests.” Id. at 16. 9 Defendants’ argument fails to meet the standard for contesting plaintiff’s counsels’ 10 time spent on this case. Defendants do not specifically identify any inaccurate, 11 duplicative, or excessive entries in plaintiff’s counsels’ billing records. Instead, defendants 12 offer a “conclusory” objection to the total sum of hours. Cancio, 2005 WL 1629808, at *3. 13 The Court’s independent review reveals no duplicative or otherwise excessive billing 14 entries. Therefore, the Court FINDS that plaintiff’s counsels’ time spent on this case— 15 23.4 hours by attorney Schwinn and 8.4 by attorney Roulston—was reasonable. 16 B. Hourly Rates 17 A reasonable hourly rate is based on the “experience, skill, and reputation of the 18 attorney requesting fees,” in the context of “the rate prevailing in the community for 19 similar work performed by attorneys of comparable skill, experience, and reputation.” 20 Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 1986). The burden is 21 on the fee applicant to show that fees are in line with prevailing market rates. Blum v. 22 Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11 (1984); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge 23 Corp., 896 F.2d 403, 407 (9th Cir. 1990). Here, attorney Schwinn (with over 22 years of 24 experience) requests $650 per hour and attorney Roulston (with over 12 years of 25 experience) requests $550 per hour. Dkt. No. 28 at 11. 26 Very recently, a court in this District surveyed market rates for plaintiffs’ counsel in 27 FDCPA cases. Bidwal v. Unifund CCR Partners, Case No. 17-cv-02699-LB, 2019 WL 1 years of experience in FDCPA litigation to counsel here. Id. at *4–6. The court there 2 concluded that $475 per hour was a reasonable market rate for a plaintiff’s attorney with 3 28 years of experience, and $375 per hour was a reasonable market rate for a plaintiff’s 4 attorney with under 20 years of experience. Id. at *8. The Bidwal case, like this one, 5 involved a complaint and one amended complaint, but additionally included a status 6 conference, mediation, and written discovery. Id. at *1–3. The court called Bidwal a 7 “straightforward debt-collection case” and the relatively low complexity of the case 8 factored into the court’s analysis of the reasonableness of the fee rates. Id. 9 The Court finds that this, too, is a straightforward debt-collection case and, as such, 10 the hourly rates requested by plaintiff’s counsel are unreasonably high. The Court finds 11 that plaintiff’s counsel have not met their burden of showing that their fees are in line with 12 prevailing market rates. The cases cited by plaintiff in his motion include cases that lasted 13 much longer than this one, unpublished state court cases, class actions involving class 14 certification motions and motions for summary judgment, cases with uncontested fee 15 motions from settlements, cases that went up on appeal, and cases not based on the 16 FDCPA. Dkt. No. 28 at 6–8. The Court is not persuaded by plaintiff’s briefing that these 17 cases are applicable here. Rather, the cases surveyed by the Bidwal court are of similar 18 length, complexity, and subject matter, and are limited to cases in this District that are 19 based on the FDCPA. As such, the Court FINDS in line with Bidwal that hourly rates of 20 $475 for attorney Schwinn and $375 for attorney Roulston are reasonable. This also 21 reflects a slight increase from this Court’s previous order in Skinner v. Mountain Lion 22 Acquisitions, LLC, Case No. 13-cv-0704-NC, finding rates of $450 per hour and $350 per 23 hour reasonable for attorneys Schwinn and Roulston, respectively. 24 C. Costs 25 The FDCPA and Rosenthal Act award a prevailing plaintiff reasonable costs. 15 26 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3); Cal. Civ. Code 1788.30. Brady’s counsel request $500.05 for costs 27 including the court filing fees and various administrative expenses. The Court FINDS that 1 IV. Conclusion 2 The motion for attorney’s fees is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 3 || The Court awards the following attorneys’ fees and costs: 4 e 23.4 hours at $475 per hour for attorney Schwinn, totaling $11,115; 5 e 8.4 hours at $375 per hour for attorney Roulston, totaling $3,150; and 6 e costs of $500.05; 7 for a total of $14,765.05. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: October 25, 2019 hbhe =< —; _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 12 United States Magistrate Judge 15 A 16 © 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28