JEFFREY T. MILLERY, District Judge.
Plaintiff Donald Williams filed this case in October of 2011 alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788
After the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference was held in front of Magistrate Judge Skomal, Defendants made an offer of judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 of $1,001 plus "reasonable attorneys' fees incurred and costs accrued" to the date of the offer. Plaintiff accepted the offer and the document was filed with the court on April 2, 2012. However, the parties were unable to agree on the appropriate amount of attorney's fees; Plaintiff has now moved for an award of $4,845.20 (based on 18.8 billable hours) under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c). Defendants request that the court award a total of $1,887 based on a lower billing rate and a reduction to 8.3 billable hours. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED.
To determine the appropriate fee award, the court must use the "lodestar" method, in which the number of hours billed is multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.
Attorney Amy Bennecoff
Partner Craig Thor Kimmel
Attorney Jacob Ginsburg spent two hours on the case at the rate of $180/hour. He communicated with Plaintiff and assisted with drafting the pleadings. The total requested for Mr. Ginsburg is $360.
Paralegal Dawn Grob billed 1.9 hours on the case at a rate of $165/hour, and paralegal Jason Ryan spent 0.7 hours at $155/hour. Paralegal Pete Keltz billed 1.8 hours at $80/hour. This adds to 4.4 hours and $566.
Plaintiff only requests the $350 for the filing fee in costs; no costs for copying or other services is requested.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's counsel performed unnecessary work because they failed to inform Plaintiff of a $500 settlement offer made in the middle of January. Plaintiff disputes this factual assertion. Defendants' argument continues by postulating that if the settlement offer had been made to Plaintiff, he would have informed Plaintiff's counsel that he received two additional calls from Defendants. Then, "[h]ad Ms. Bennecoff then shared the information regarding the two additional calls with Defendants, Defendants could have confirmed its veracity and resolved this case long before the parties were required to spend time preparing for or attending the ENE." Def. Opp. at 5.
Defendants' argument asks the court to assume that Plaintiff's counsel completely failed to perform their duty to inform Plaintiff of the settlement offer. While it is true that Plaintiff's counsel's billing does not specifically reflect a conversation concerning the settlement offer, the court declines to accept Defendants' assumption that the offer was never conveyed, causing unnecessary litigation. Defendants' further argument—that relaying the settlement offer to Plaintiff would have hastened settlement because it would have alerted Defendants to their statutory violations—must fail as well as it is predicated upon speculation.
Much of Defendants' opposition is focused on specific billing entries made by Plaintiff's counsel. Defendants also argue that much of the billing was repetitive because multiple attorneys and/or paralegals worked on the same documents.
While Defendants are clearly correct that unnecessary work should not be billed, Defendants provide little or no legal support for their arguments concerning specific instances of billing. Many of Defendants' arguments arise from disputes over trivial amounts of time, sometimes as little as one-tenth of one hour. It is virtually impossible to reasonably determine whether each tenth of an hour billed by Plaintiff's counsel is accurate; however, each entry appears to be reasonable, and the overall amount of time spent on the case certainly falls well within the range of reasonableness.
Defendants also take issue with the rate charged by Plaintiff's counsel, especially the $278/hour billed by Amy Bennecoff. Part of the argument is based on Defendants' contentions that Ms. Bennecoff has filed very similar complaints and motions in other cases in this district. They request that the rates be reduced as follows: Defendants ask that the rates be reduced as follows: Kimmel: $310; Bennecoff: $210; Ginsburg: $140; Ryan: $110; Grob: $110; Keltz: $50. Defendants also cite several cases from the District of New Jersey in which Plaintiff's counsel's fees have been reduced.
However, other out-of-district cases have upheld similar fee requests for Plaintiff's counsel.
The court finds that the rates requested are similar to the prevailing rates for similar work in this district. Though case law both within and outside the district lacks complete uniformity, the
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's motion for fees in the amount of $4,845.20 is GRANTED.