A District Court judge in Pennsylvania has awarded a plaintiff more than $450,000 in attorney’s fees in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, although it was well less than the $700,000 that the plaintiff was seeking.
The background: The case began after the plaintiff received a collection letter that attempted to recover on a time-barred debt. The letter was sent by a law firm on behalf of a creditor. The plaintiff alleged the communication violated several provisions of the FDCPA, including misleading representations about the debt and attempts to collect without proper licensing.
- Initially filed in New York in 2020, the case was transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania in 2021.
- The litigation stretched over five years, involving multiple rounds of discovery disputes, motions for summary judgment, and a failed attempt at class certification. While the court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants, it also sided with the plaintiff on certain claims, including that the letter violated the FDCPA because the creditor was not licensed as a mortgage servicer under Pennsylvania law.
- Both defendants settled with the plaintiff shortly before trial.
The ruling: Following settlement, the plaintiff sought more than $736,000 in attorney’s fees and $5,350 in costs. Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand of the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania found the fee request excessive in part and reduced it after scrutinizing hourly rates, billing entries, and the plaintiff’s lack of success on class certification.
- While approving the plaintiff’s requested hourly rates as reasonable, Judge Wiegand cut portions of the billing as duplicative or excessive. She also imposed a 35% downward adjustment to reflect the plaintiff’s failure to achieve class certification. In total, she awarded $464,335.95 in fees and $2,255.96 in costs.
- In her opinion, Judge Wiegand noted that defendants “cannot litigate tenaciously and then be heard to complain about the time necessarily spent by [the plaintiff] in response,” citing prior case law. At the same time, she emphasized the need to balance the fee award against the “degree of success obtained” by the plaintiff, particularly the inability to certify a class.
