Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04288/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04288-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 06-4288 JF

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 4/2/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MILDRED LEA, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

CYPRESS COLLECTIONS, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06-4288 JF

ORDER AWARDING 1

ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS

[re: docket no. 38]

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs Mildred Lea and Kimberly Ortega filed the instant action on July 13, 2006,

asserting claims for violation of (1) the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”),

15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; and (2) the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ.

Code § 1788 et seq. Defendant Cypress Collections (“Cypress”) answered the complaint on

August 22, 2006. On January 4, 2007, prior to the filing of any dispositive motions, Plaintiffs

accepted Cypress’ offer of judgement for a total sum of $4,000.00. The judgment provided that

Defendants would pay attorneys’s fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the Court. 

Case 5:06-cv-04288-JF Document 51 Filed 04/02/07 Page 1 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 On February 23, 2007, the Court vacated the referral of this case to mediation. 2

2

Case No. C 06-4288 JF

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

Plaintiffs moved for attorneys’s fees of $10,000.00 on January 30, 2007. Cypress opposes the 2

motion. The Court heard oral argument on March 30, 2007.

II. DISCUSSION

Three lawyers worked on this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs. Using the lodestar method,

Plaintiffs calculate fees and costs as follows:

Attorney Hours Hourly Rate Total

B.O. Letona 15.7 $250.00 $3,925.00

R. Wilcox 16.7 $300.00 $5,010.00

O.R. Bragg 12.7 $465.00 $5,905.50

Costs $688.00

Total 45.1 $15,528.50

In an effort to resolve any debate over fees and to “avoid arguments over duplication of efforts,”

Plaintiffs proposed an award of $10,000.00 for all costs and attorneys’s fees. Motion 13. 

Defendant objects to the proposed award on the basis that the Plaintiffs’s attorneys

required an unduly high number of hours to resolve this simple litigation, that the hourly rates are

too high, and that Plaintiffs seek inappropriate costs. Having considered the nature of the case

and the work performed by Plaintiffs’s attorneys, the Court concludes that Defendant’s

objections are well taken and will grant a lower award of fees and costs than that sought by

Plaintiffs. 

The instant action was a relatively simple FDCPA case. The parties disputed the interest

rate charged by Cypress, but this dispute was not subject to any briefing or argument before this

Court. The motion practice in this case has been limited to an application for pro hac vice status,

the deferral of various deadlines and mediation dates, and the instant motion for fees and costs. 

No dispositive motion practice occurred in the case. The complaint included class allegations,

but the judgment was limited to the satisfaction of the two Plaintiffs’s individual claims. In light

of the relative simplicity of the case, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs’s tacit admission that

Case 5:06-cv-04288-JF Document 51 Filed 04/02/07 Page 2 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Cypress argues that the service cost is unnecessarily high and that Plaintiffs provide no 3

admissible evidence of the appropriate amount. However, Balám O. Letona declares that he

expended the contested amount to serve the complaint. Declaration of Balám O. Letona ¶ 9. 

This declaration provides a sufficient basis for an award of costs. 

3

Case No. C 06-4288 JF

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

duplication of effort occurred. Plaintiffs have reduced the overall fee sought by approximately

one third. Having reviewed the papers filed by the parties and the supporting declarations, the

Court concludes that such a reduction in the number of hours of work performed by Plaintiffs’s

counsel is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court will calculate the appropriate attorneys’s fees

using thirty, not forty-five, as the number of hours worked.

The Court concludes that $250.00 is the appropriate hourly rate in this action. The Court

reaches this conclusion on the basis that the action was simple and did not require sophisticated

knowledge of the FDCPA. See e.g. Finkelstein v. Bergna, 804 F.Supp. 1235, 1243 (N.D.Cal.

1992) (explaining that the appropriate hourly rate is related to the complexity of the case). This

amount is appropriate in light of other decisions within this district and prevailing rates in the

marketplace. See e.g. Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment, Case No. C 05-

0766 JW (N.D.Cal., Nov. 8, 2005) (awarding $210.51 hourly rate in FDCPA action); Declaration

of Scott Maurer (detailing a series of awards, primarily between $250-$300/hour). 

The Court concludes that it should award a further $478.00 in costs. This amount is

equal to the $350.00 filing fee and $128.00 in costs of service. The Court declines to award

3

Plaintiffs the $210.00 fee for O.R. Bragg’s pro hac vice application. The billing statements

submitted to the Court indicate that a large amount of the duplication suffered in this lawsuit was

duplication of effort by Attorneys Bragg and Wilcox. The declarations provided by Plaintiffs

provide very little detail regarding the value that Bragg added to the Plaintiffs’s legal team and a

tension exists between Wilcox’s declared expertise in this area of law and his asserted need to

consult with an out-of-state attorney on a simple case. Finally, insufficient evidence exists

explaining the necessity of a three-attorney team for a case that never required the argument of a

dispositive motion.

Case 5:06-cv-04288-JF Document 51 Filed 04/02/07 Page 3 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Case No. C 06-4288 JF

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

III. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs be awarded

$7,978.00 for attorneys’s fees and costs.

DATED: April 2, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04288-JF Document 51 Filed 04/02/07 Page 4 of 5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Case No. C 06-4288 JF

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

O. Randolph Bragg rand@horwitzlaw.com, shannon@horwitzlaw.com 

June D. Coleman jcoleman@ecplslaw.com, fwilson@ecplslaw.com 

Mark E. Ellis restrella@ecplslaw.com, npruitt@ecplslaw.com 

Balam Osberto Letona letonalaw@gmail.com 

Ronald Wilcox ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu 

Case 5:06-cv-04288-JF Document 51 Filed 04/02/07 Page 5 of 5