A District Court judge in New York has essentially split the difference in awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case because both sides could not come to an agreement on their own after the plaintiff accepted an offer of judgment.
The background: The plaintiff initiated the case in January 2024, alleging that the defendant violated the FDCPA by using deceptive methods to collect a debt, including false representations and unfair practices. Additional claims under New York General Business Law were included for deceptive business practices. The defendant denied the allegations, citing multiple affirmative defenses, including bona fide clerical errors and federal preemption of state claims.
- In May, the defendant extended an offer of judgment for $3,000, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be determined by agreement or by the court. The plaintiff accepted the offer, but negotiations on the fees stalled, requiring judicial intervention.
The ruling: The plaintiff requested $7,076 in attorney’s fees and $405 in costs. The court reviewed the hours and rates submitted, ultimately reducing the number of hours billed by 25% in several categories, including legal research and client meetings. The court found the hours spent excessive given the straightforward nature of the case and adjusted them accordingly.
- Billing rates of $175 per hour for client meetings and $240 per hour for other legal work were deemed reasonable based on the experience of the plaintiff’s counsel and prevailing rates for similar cases. The court awarded $5,307 in attorney’s fees and $405 in costs, for a total of $5,712.
