A District Court judge in Indiana has reduced the requested amount of attorney’s fees by more than 50% in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, noting the “significant concerns” not only with the amount sought by the plaintiff but also the work expended in an “uncomplicated” case.
The background: The suit was filed after the defendant allegedly violated the FDCPA by failing to report a debt as disputed on the plaintiff’s credit report. This was not the first time the plaintiff, who had previously settled a similar case with the defendant months earlier, encountered the same issue. After reviewing her credit report, the plaintiff found that the debt had again been reported incorrectly, prompting the second lawsuit in October 2023.
- The plaintiff’s second complaint mirrored much of the first, with only minor additions and updates to the exhibits.
- Despite an early settlement offer from the defendant, which was rejected by the plaintiff, the case continued to escalate with numerous motions and disputes over the defendant’s affirmative defenses.
- After some back-and-forth, the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s second offer of judgment in May 2024.
The ruling: Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted in part the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees but sharply reduced the amount sought. The plaintiff had requested over $19,000 in fees, but Judge Evans Barker deemed much of the work claimed as excessive, redundant, or unnecessary, especially given the similarity of the case to the prior lawsuit.
- The judge pointed out that the case was straightforward, involving little more than a simple claim that the defendant failed to mark the debt as disputed. This lack of complexity, compounded by the fact that the parties had already settled a nearly identical lawsuit, led to the court’s decision to significantly reduce the hours billed for legal work.
- In addition, Judge Evans Barker found that the plaintiff’s decision to reject a substantial settlement offer early in the litigation contributed to the increase in attorney fees. She ultimately awarded the plaintiff $7,526.75 in attorney fees and $454 in costs.
