Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01654/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01654-0/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 1

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

Case No. C 05-01654 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 12/12/05**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FLORA MARIE GIOVANNONI,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

BIDNA & KEYS, A PROFESSIONAL LAW

CORPORATION, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-01654 JF (HRL)

ORDER1 RE MOTION FOR

ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

[Docket No. 22]

On April 20, 2005, Plaintiff Flora Marie Giovannoni (“Giovannoni”) filed a complaint

against Defendants Bidna & Keys, A Professional Law Corporation, Howard Michael Bidna,

Richard David Keys, Harvey Michael Moore, and Angela Christine Dawson, alleging violations

of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. On May 10,

2005, Giovannoni filed an amended complaint, following communications between Defendants

and Plaintiff’s counsel. On June 6, 2005, Defendants served Giovannoni with their first Offer of

Judgment, which Giovannoni rejected. On August 11, 2005, Defendants served Giovannoni with

Case 5:05-cv-01654-JF Document 27 Filed 12/12/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

Case No. C 05-01654 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

their second Offer of Judgment, which Giovannoni accepted. On October 7, 2005, this Court

entered judgment, awarding Giovannoni $1,001.00 plus an amount to be determined by this

Court for reasonable attorney fees and costs.

On October 21, 2005, Giovannoni filed the instant motion for attorney fees and costs. 

Giovannoni’s counsel, Fred W. Schwinn (“Schwinn”), requests attorney fees in the amount of

$8,677.50 and costs and expenses in the amount of $511.10. On November 17, 2005, the clerk

of the court taxed costs in the amount of $250.00. Accordingly, the Court considers only the

request for attorney fees in the amount of $8,677.50, which includes fees for hours worked by

Schwinn and his student law clerk. Schwinn has submitted to the Court detailed billing records

showing that he and his law clerk worked a total of 39.8 hours representing Giovannoni. He

adjusted this figure down by 16.33% to 33.3 hours. Of these, 25.8 hours were performed by

Schwinn, billed at a rate of $300.00 per hour, and 7.5 hours were performed by his law clerk,

billed at a rate of $125.00 per hour. On November 3, 2005, Defendants filed opposition to

Giovannoni’s motion for attorney fees. On November 14, 2005, Giovannoni filed a reply. 

Schwinn is an attorney experienced in representing plaintiffs in FDCPA cases. He

acknowledges that Giovannoni’s claims in the instant case were “not novel or difficult to

resolve.” However, he notes that his hours were increased by his “unyielding approach,” in

which he rejected Defendants’ first offer of judgment. Schwinn also notes that prior to his

across-the-board 16.33% reduction in hours, he “made a special effort to eliminate any attorney

and staff time that might be duplicative of work done by others or might have been avoided by

optimum economy.” 

Defendants oppose Giovannoni’s motion for attorney fees and costs, claiming that it is

unreasonable and requesting that the Court award no attorney fees or no more than $1,000 in

total fees and costs. They argue Schwinn unreasonably refused settlement offers and raised the

amount he demanded for settlement. Further, they argue that Schwinn used the fact that the

FDCPA contains attorney fee provisions “to threaten and obtain settlements in excess of any

reasonable value of any benefit he provides to his client or the public in general.” Opposition 2. 

Most concerning to the Court, Defendants allege that Giovannoni might not know anything about

Case 5:05-cv-01654-JF Document 27 Filed 12/12/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Case No. C 05-01654 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

what has happened in this case. They identify three facts supporting this allegation: (1) Schwinn

was unable to tell how his client remembered what the letter at issue looked like when she

opened it, (2) the First Amended Complaint alleged Giovannoni’s residence on information and

belief, and (3) as of the time the opposition was filed, the $1,001 settlement check sent to

Schwinn more than two months prior to the filing of the opposition had not been cashed. 

Schwinn’s reply brief on behalf of Giovannoni contains no response to Defendants’ allegations. 

The Court is not prepared to resolve this matter without additional information

concerning the circumstances of Schwinn’s representation. Accordingly, the instant motion shall

be set for hearing on February 3, 2007. Plaintiff shall appear in person or submit a declaration

under penalty of perjury setting forth the extent of her knowledge of the instant proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 12, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01654-JF Document 27 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 4
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 05-01654 JF (HRL)

ORDER RE MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Harvey M. Moore hmoore@bidnakeys.com

Frederick William Schwinn cand_cmecf@sjconsumerlaw.com,

fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com

Case 5:05-cv-01654-JF Document 27 Filed 12/12/05 Page 4 of 4