-WMC Durham v. Continental, No. 3:2007cv01763 - Document 103 (S.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 94 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 12/27/11. (ecs)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-WMC Durham v. Continental Doc. 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 SALLIE A. DURHAM, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, 13 CASE NO. 07cv1763 BTM(WMc) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES Plaintiff, v. 14 15 16 CONTINENTAL CENTRAL CREDIT, et al., Defendants. 17 18 19 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees and expenses. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. 20 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 This action arises out of attempts by Continental Central Credit, Inc. (“CCC”) to collect 23 amounts assessed against Plaintiff by San Clemente Cove Vacation Owners Association. 24 In her original complaint, filed on September 7, 2007, Plaintiff, suing on behalf of 25 herself and a class of similarly situated individuals, asserted claims for violation of the 26 Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq., and 27 California’s Robbins-Rosenthal Fair Debt Collect Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civil Code 28 §§ 1788.17, 1788.13(e). Plaintiff’s claims were primarily based on Defendants’ attempts to 1 07cv1763 BTM(WMc) Dockets.Justia.com 1 collect an allegedly unlawful collection fee. 2 In her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), filed on November 30, 2007, Plaintiff added 3 allegations that CCC violated the FDCPA – 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10), 1692g – by sending, 4 less than 30 days after sending an initial notice of debt, a second collection notice that 5 overshadowed the disclosure of rights in the first notice. 6 7 8 9 On January 2, 2008, Plaintiff requested dismissal of defendant Vacation Resorts International. In an order filed on March 20, 2008, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 10 In an order filed on October 20, 2009, the Court granted summary judgment in favor 11 of Defendants on Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to 12 collect a collection fee equal to 40% of the outstanding principal. The Court held that 13 Plaintiff had failed to establish that such collection fee was prohibited by law. The Court also 14 granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s RFDCPA claim because the 15 underlying debt was not owed in connection with a “consumer credit transaction,” as required 16 by Cal. Civil Code § 1788.2(f). The Court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 17 with respect to Plaintiff’s claim that CCC violated the FDCPA by sending Plaintiff a letter in 18 the form of Exhibit B to the FAC (“Exhibit B letter”) within 30 days of sending Plaintiff a letter 19 in the form of Exhibit A to the FAC (“Exhibit A letter”). The Court held that the Exhibit B 20 letter, which demanded immediate payment, overshadowed the Exhibit A letter’s notice to 21 Plaintiff of her right to dispute the debt within 30 days after receipt of the letter. The Court 22 further held that CCC was not entitled to summary judgment based on its bona fide error 23 defense under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c). 24 In its October 20, 2009 order, the Court also denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s 25 motion for class certification with respect to the “Overshadowing or Contradicting Class.” 26 The Court explained that Plaintiff had failed to satisfy her burden of establishing that the 27 class was so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable. 28 2 07cv1763 BTM(WMc) 1 In an order filed on July 14, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second motion for class 2 certification. The Court certified the “Overshadowing or Contradicting Class” under Fed. R. 3 Civ. P. 23(b)(3). 4 On September 7, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on her 5 remaining FDCPA claim. The Court never ruled upon the motion due to a settlement 6 between the parties. 7 On October 12, 2010, the parties entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement. 8 In an order filed on June 2, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion for 9 approval of class action settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, CCC is obligated to 10 pay Ms. Durham $1,000 in statutory damages plus an incentive award of $3,000. CCC must 11 also pay to the Class Members who have not excluded themselves from the Class a pro-rata 12 share of a settlement fund in the amount of $17,750. The amount of the settlement fund 13 equals the maximum recovery under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(B) (the lesser of $500,000 or 14 1 percent of the net worth of the debt collector). The parties reached no agreement as to 15 the amount of attorney’s fees recoverable by Class Counsel. 16 17 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 As the prevailing party on the FDCPA claim regarding the overshadowing notice, 20 Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Plaintiff requests 21 an award of $42,775 for work performed by Deborah L. Raymond and $134,004.60 for work 22 performed by O. Randolph Bragg and his paralegal. Plaintiff also seeks costs in the amount 23 of $5,995.79 ($495 incurred by Ms. Raymond and $5,500.79 incurred by Mr. Bragg’s firm). 24 The Court reduces the fees and costs as set forth below. 25 26 A. Attorney’s Fees 27 Under federal fee-shifting statutes, the lodestar approach is the “guiding light” in 28 determining a reasonable fee. Perdue v. Kenny A., 599 U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1662, 1672 3 07cv1763 BTM(WMc) 1 (2010). To calculate the “lodestar,” the court multiplies the appropriate hourly rate for the 2 work performed by the number of hours reasonably expended on the work. Id. Although 3 the lodestar calculation may be increased in “rare” and “exceptional” circumstances, there 4 is a “strong” presumption that the lodestar amount is sufficient. Id. at 1673. 5 6 1. Hourly Rate 7 Mr. Bragg, an attorney with over 35 years of experience and a practice devoted to 8 consumer issues, seeks an hourly rate of $480 per hour. The claimed hourly rate for Mr. 9 Bragg’s paralegal, Shannon Carter, is $120. Ms. Raymond, an attorney with 17 years of 10 experience, whose work focuses on cases involving consumer financial issues, seeks an 11 hourly rate of $400 per hour. 12 The lodestar method looks to the “prevailing market rates in the relevant community.” 13 Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 (1984). The Court is not convinced that the claimed 14 rates of Mr. Bragg and Ms. Raymond are consistent with the prevailing market rates in San 15 Diego for the type of work involved in this case.1 The rates approved in other FDCPA cases 16 brought in San Diego are significantly lower. For example, in Catala v. Resurgent Capital 17 Services L.P., 2010 WL 2524158, at * 7 (S.D. Cal. June 22, 2010), the Court approved the 18 following rates for Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm, Hyde & Swigart, which has an almost 19 exclusive practice in debt collection abuse litigation: $355 for partners, $225-$275 for 20 associates, and $95-$125 for support staff.2 See also Hunter v. Oasis Financial Solutions, 21 LLC, 2011 WL 1559256 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2011) (lead counsel sought billing rate of $300 22 per hour); Gold v. NCO Fin. Sys., Inc., 2010 WL 3339498 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2010) 23 1 24 25 26 27 28 Mr. Bragg cites to a couple of Northern District of California cases in which his hourly rate was approved. However, the Northern District is not the relevant community. Ms. Raymond relies on the United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report 2010-2011 by Ronald L. Burdge. According to this report, the median California attorney hourly rate is $412. The report is of limited usefulness because the report does not beak down the hourly rates by region within California. 2 Robert L. Hyde submitted a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees. In his declaration, Hyde opines that the rates sought by Ms. Raymond and Mr. Bragg are reasonable. However, Hyde does not set forth a factual basis for his opinion and does not discuss the rates his firm charges for attorneys with comparable experience. 4 07cv1763 BTM(WMc) 1 (approving hourly rates of $295 and $225 for counsel and local counsel). 2 Although this action was a class action, the legal issues were not complex. The Court 3 finds that a reasonable hourly fee for the work performed in this case is $375 for Mr. Bragg 4 and $300 for Ms. Raymond. The $120 hourly rate for Mr. Bragg’s paralegal is reasonable. 5 2. Reasonable Hours 6 7 In determining the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation, the court 8 should exclude hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary. Hensley v. 9 Eckert, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). In cases where a plaintiff has achieved only partial or 10 limited success, the district court may attempt to identify specific hours that should be 11 eliminated or it may simply reduce the award to account for the limited success. Id. at 436. 12 Here, Plaintiff achieved only partial success. Plaintiff did not prevail on her separate 13 and distinct FDCPA and RFDCPA claims based on the alleged unlawful collection fee. It 14 appears that the unsuccessful claims were the focus of the litigation before the Court issued 15 its summary judgment order. The ultimately successful claim was not introduced until the 16 FAC was filed. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss the FAC contained only one 17 paragraph regarding the overshadowing notice claim. Similarly, Plaintiff’s Opposition to 18 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment was largely devoted to the unlawful collection 19 fee claims and contained only three pages of argument regarding the overshadowing notice 20 claim. 21 The Court finds that a 75% reduction of the hours expended by Mr. Bragg and Ms. 22 Raymond on the litigation up to and including Defendant’s summary judgment motion, is 23 warranted. The Court notes that Mr. Bragg voluntarily reduced his requested hours by 15%, 24 and Ms. Raymond voluntarily reduced her requested hours by varying percentages, 25 depending on the category of work. The Court is not taking a 75% reduction on top of the 26 reductions taken by the attorneys, but, rather, looks to the actual time billed to calculate the 27 75% reduction. 28 In addition, the Court strikes time expended by both attorneys on the first motion for 5 07cv1763 BTM(WMc) 1 class certification, which was unsuccessful. The Court also strikes certain hours expended 2 by Mr. Bragg. Mr. Bragg billed a total of 15.7 hours for preparing the reply brief and an 3 objection in support of the motion for class certification. The Court will allow 10 hours for 4 these tasks and strikes 5.7 hours as excessive. The Court also subtracts an hour for 5 multiple entries of .1 or more for reviewing minute entries and scheduling orders. In his 6 supplemental declaration, Mr. Bragg requests 30.1 hours for time spent on the litigation 7 since June 11, 2011. Almost all of this time was spent on the motion for attorney’s fees and 8 reply. The Court will allow recovery of 12 of these hours. The Court also strikes the travel 9 time Mr. Bragg billed for traveling to San Diego to take two depositions, because it is unclear 10 why Ms. Raymond, local counsel, could not handle the depositions. 11 Defendant CCC argues that the Court should also strike any time spent by Plaintiff’s 12 attorneys on Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. CCC argues that the Court had 13 already ruled in Plaintiff’s favor on her overshadowing notice claim. However, denying 14 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the claim is not the same thing as granting a 15 motion for summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff was entitled to bring her own 16 motion for summary judgment to narrow the issues for trial. The Court will allow the time 17 expended in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 18 3. Lodestar Calculation 19 20 Taking into account the reductions set forth above, the lodestar calculations are as 21 follows: 22 Ms. Raymond 23 Hours approved 24 30 25% of 120 hours billed on or before 10/21/09 25 23.4 Hours billed after 10/21/09 26 4.5 27 28 Description Additional hours billed in connection with motion for attorney’s fees Total hours 57.9 6 07cv1763 BTM(WMc) 1 Lodestar calculation: 57.9 x $300 = $17,370 2 3 Mr. Bragg 4 Hours approved Description 5 15.75 25% of 63 hours billed on and before 10/29/2009 6 78.4 Hours billed after 10/29/09 7 12 Hours billed since 6/11/11 8 Total hours 9 106.15 10 11 Lodestar calculation: 106.15 x $375 = $39,806.25 12 13 Shannon Carter (paralegal) 14 Lodestar calculation: 2.8 x $120 = $336 15 16 Defendant CCC argues that the lodestar amounts for Mr. Bragg and Ms. Raymond 17 should be reduced because the amounts are disproportionate to the recovery of Plaintiff and 18 the plaintiff class. The Court does not believe that disproportionality between the amount 19 of attorney’s fees and the amount of damages recovered by plaintiffs warrants a reduction 20 of the lodestar sum in this case. In FDCPA cases, the expected recovery based on statutory 21 damages is often small. Congress created an incentive for attorneys to represent plaintiffs 22 in FDCPA cases by providing for fee-shifting. A requirement of proportionality between 23 attorney’s fees and damages would discourage attorneys from accepting representation of 24 FDCPA plaintiffs and would be inconsistent with the FDCPA’s statutory scheme. See 25 Phenow v. Johnson, Rodenberg & Lauinger, PLLP, 766 F. Supp. 2d 955, 959 (D. Minn. 26 2011) (rejecting proportionality argument in FDCPA context); Rivera v. Corporate 27 Receivables, Inc., 540 F. Supp. 2d 329, 338 (D. Conn. 2008) (same). The Court has already 28 taken into account the degree of success of the litigation in determining the amount of hours 7 07cv1763 BTM(WMc) 1 reasonably expended on the litigation. 2 3 B. Costs 4 Ms. Raymond incurred costs totaling $495 ($350 for filing fee and $145 for service 5 process). These costs are approved. 6 Mr. Bragg incurred costs totaling $5,500.79. The Court approves $180 for 7 filing/appearance fees, $780.75 for costs associated with providing class notice, and $816.94 8 (25% of $3,267.76) for costs associated with depositions and discovery (see Cummings v. 9 Connell, 316 F.3d 886, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that district court may reduce costs 10 to reflect limited success on the merits)). The Court does not allow the travel costs for the 11 reasons discussed above in connection with Mr. Bragg’s travel time. 12 The total amount of costs approved is $2,272.69. 13 III. CONCLUSION 14 15 For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is 16 GRANTED PART in DENIED IN PART. The Court awards Plaintiff attorney’s fees in the 17 amount of $57,512.25 and costs in the amount of $2,272.69. The Clerk shall enter judgment 18 accordingly. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: December 27, 2011 21 22 23 Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 8 07cv1763 BTM(WMc)
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
