A District Court judge in California has essentially split the difference in awarding attorney’s fees to the plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, awarding the plaintiff’s attorney a lower hourly rate than requested, largely due to the jurisdiction in which the case was filed.
The background: The plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the FDCPA tied to debt collection activities. The case itself did not proceed through extended litigation. Instead, it was resolved relatively early when the plaintiff accepted an offer of judgment. That left one key issue unresolved between the parties: the amount of attorney’s fees and costs owed to the plaintiff as the prevailing party. The plaintiff sought more than $17,000 in total fees and costs, while the defendant argued for a significantly reduced figure of roughly $6,400.
- The dispute centered on two familiar battlegrounds in FDCPA fee petitions: the appropriate hourly rate and whether the time billed was reasonable.
The ruling: Judge John A. Houston of the District Court for the Southern District of California ultimately sided with both parties in part. On the hourly rate, the judge rejected the plaintiff’s request for $450 per hour, noting that the plaintiff improperly relied on Los Angeles market rates rather than those applicable to the Southern District of California.
- Instead, the court looked to local data, including a national rate report, and landed on $325 per hour as a reasonable rate based on the attorney’s experience and the San Diego legal market. This adjustment alone significantly reduced the overall fee award.
- On the hours billed, however, Judge Houston largely rejected the defendant’s arguments for reductions. The defendant challenged time spent drafting the complaint, billing in 0.1 increments, work on an unfiled motion to strike, and time spent preparing the fee motion itself. The judge was not persuaded, noting that “the essential goal in shifting fees…is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection,” and declined to second-guess the attorney’s time entries in a granular way.
- Notably, the judge also reinforced that time spent litigating fees is compensable, a point that continues to surface in FDCPA cases.
- In the end, the court calculated the award using 38 total hours at $325 per hour, awarding $12,350 in fees plus $480 in costs, for a total of $12,830. An additional request for copying costs was denied based on local rules.
