Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03681/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-03681-14/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 04-03681 JF (HRL)

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS 

(JFEX2)

**E-Filed 7/05/07 **

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SHARON WYATT, on behalf of herself and all

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

CREDITCARE, INC., d/b/a CREDIT C.A.R.E.,

INC. and MIKE GURNEY, a/k/a Tom Wright,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 04-03681 JF (HRL)

ORDER AWARDING 1

ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS 

[re: docket no. 104]

I. BACKGROUND

Mike Gurney (“Gurney”) is the president of CreditCare, Inc. (“CreditCare”) a private

corporation that engages in debt collection. On September 1, 2004, Plaintiff Sharon Wyatt

(“Wyatt”) filed the instant action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1692 (“FDCPA”) and the California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code

Case 5:04-cv-03681-JF Document 107 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 6
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

 CreditCare has since filed for bankruptcy. 

2

 Plaintiff erroneously calculated this amount as $29,542.00. 3

2

Case No. C 04-03681 JF (HRL)

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS 

(JFEX2)

§ 1788. 

2

On October 25, 2005 the Court granted in part Wyatt’s motion for class certification. The

Court ruled that the action could proceed on the basis of a class including: (a) all persons who

were sent a letter from Defendants in the form of Exhibits A and/or B to Plaintiff’s amended

complaint; (b) at an address in California; (c) in an attempt to collect a debt incurred for personal,

family or household purposes. The class period was one year prior to the filing of the action. 

On November 8, 2005, the Court granted the motion of counsel for Defendants to

withdraw. On November 9, 2006, Magistrate Judge Seeborg granted Wyatt’s motion to compel

Gurney to appear for deposition. The Court found that Gurney had failed to participate in the

litigation since the withdrawal of counsel, to appear at a properly noticed deposition, or to meet

and confer with the opposing party. 

On March 8, 2007 the Court granted Wyatt’s motion to decertify the class because of

Gurney’s failure to provide a list of the names and addresses of the class members. At the same

time, the Court entered default judgment in favor of Wyatt in the amount of $3,000 plus costs

and reasonable attorney fees.

II. DISCUSSION

Three lawyers, a law clerk, and several paralegals worked on this matter on behalf of

Wyatt. Using the lodestar method, Plaintiff requests the following fees and costs:

Attorney Hours Hourly Rate Total

Ronald Wilcox 99.8 $300 $29,940.003

O. Randolph Bragg 61.3 $465 $28,504.50

Craig M. Shapiro 4.9 $200 $980.00

James M. Smith

(law clerk)

0.5 $115 $57.50

Case 5:04-cv-03681-JF Document 107 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 6
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

 Plaintiff’s counsel had three paralegals, who charge different rates, that worked a 4

combined 21.1 hours. 

3

Case No. C 04-03681 JF (HRL)

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS 

(JFEX2)

Paralegals 21.1 $95-125 $1,931.004

Costs $3,576.56

Total 187.6 $65,387.56

The Ninth Circuit has upheld awards for attorney’s fees for class-related work even when

class certification was not granted as long as the failed claim is related to successful claims by a

“common core of facts” or are “based on related legal theories.” O’Neal v. City of Seattle, 66

F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The class certification motion was not unrelated to O’Neal’s

claims. She sought to certify the class to prevent the City from refusing water service again in

similar situations . . . . The motion itself was not a separate claim, but rather a method of

pursuing her ultimately successful claims.”). In the instant action, class certification was

successful, but later had to be undone. The short-lived class action claim is related to the

successful claim. Moreover, Wyatt elected to seek decertification of the class action only after

Gurney refused to disclose the list of names of the class. Accordingly, the Court concludes that

Wyatt is entitled to fees related to her efforts to proceed with a class action. 

However, the Court also concludes that the amount requested by Plaintiff’s counsel is

excessive. Despite its brief status as a class action, the instant action was relatively simple. The

most complex legal issue in the action was the appropriateness of class certification. The

remaining motion practice in this case was simple and limited. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant

refused to provide documents unless her counsel brought a copy machine to where Gurney kept

the documents, and that Gurney failed to appear at his deposition, despite an order compelling

him to do so. While this recalcitrance by Gurney unreasonably extended the litigation, it did not

pose complex legal issues. Accordingly, having reviewed the papers filed by the parties and the

supporting declarations, the Court concludes that a reduction in the number of hours of work

performed by Plaintiff’s counsel is appropriate. After November 8, 2005, the litigation activity

was limited primarily to case management conferences. In addition, a significant portion of the

Case 5:04-cv-03681-JF Document 107 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 6
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

 The Court concludes that a $250 hourly rate is insufficient considering the somewhat 5

greater complexity of the class-related motions. Cf. Order granting Wilcox $250 as hourly

compensation Lea v. Cypress Collections, et al., C 06-04288 JF (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2007). 

4

Case No. C 04-03681 JF (HRL)

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS 

(JFEX2)

hours for which Bragg seeks compensation were spent in travel. Accordingly, the Court will

reduce the number of hours per attorney by twenty-five percent. 

The Court concludes that $300 is the appropriate hourly rate in this action for attorneys

Wilcox and Bragg. While as discussed above this action required some motion practice, it did

not require sophisticated knowledge of the FDCPA. To the extent that the action required more

attorney hours than usual, the difficulty arose from Gurney’s refusal to follow Court orders. 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); Solloway v. Allied Interstate,

Case No. C 06-04814 JF (N.D. Cal., November 13, 2006) (determining that $300 an hour was

appropriate compensation for Wilcox). Given Wilcox’s extensive practice in this case, the 5

Court perceives no reason to grant an hourly rate that is over fifty percent higher to an out-ofstate attorney. Accordingly, the Court will reduce Bragg’s hourly rate to $300. 

Finally, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s demand for costs is excessive. Plaintiff seeks

costs for travel, but such costs are not permitted under the local rules. See Civ. L.R. 54. In light

of these adjustments, the Court awards the following fees and costs:

Attorney Hour Hourly Rate Total

Ronald Wilcox 74.9 $300 $22,470.00

O. Randolph Bragg 46.0 $300 $13,800.00

Craig M. Shapiro 3.7 $200 $740.00

James M. Smith 0.5 $115 $57.50

Paralegals 21.1 $95-125 $1,931.00

Costs $1,800.19

Total 146.2 $40,798.69

Case 5:04-cv-03681-JF Document 107 Filed 07/05/07 Page 4 of 6
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 04-03681 JF (HRL)

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS 

(JFEX2)

III. ORDER

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

$40,798.69 for attorneys’s fees and costs. 

DATED: July 5, 2007.

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-03681-JF Document 107 Filed 07/05/07 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Case No. C 04-03681 JF (HRL)

ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEYS’S FEES AND COSTS 

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Ronald Wilcox: ronaldwilcox@post.harvard.edu 

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

Case 5:04-cv-03681-JF Document 107 Filed 07/05/07 Page 6 of 6