Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00468/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00468-2/pdf.json

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

---

– 1 – 

14cv468

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAWN ZOERB, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC

ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

AND COSTS v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE 

STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, a 

Delaware statutory trust(s); and LAW 

OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND 

FELIX, A.P.C.,

Defendants.

Plaintiffs’ counsel files a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs requesting 

$125,000 in attorneys’ fees and $7,500 reimbursement for costs. (ECF No. 47.) 

Defendants do not oppose. The Court held a hearing on the issue on April 3, 2017. 

After reviewing the time sheets and considering the arguments of counsel both 

oral and written, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request is reasonable and 

GRANTS the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 

14cv468

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

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Underlying Case

On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff Dawn Zoerb filed a civil class action alleging that 

Defendants, as assignees of student loan debts, failed to properly identify the original 

creditor in various state court collections actions. (ECF No. 1.) The case was 

eventually consolidated with ten other cases making the same allegations against 

Defendants. (ECF No. 22.)

The Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act by 

filing complaints in state court collections lawsuits falsely claiming that each Plaintiff 

had entered into a written loan contract with Defendants, when the Plaintiff in fact 

had never dealt with Defendants and had no idea who they were. (ECF No. 1.) 

Defendants, however, claim that the FDCPA is inapplicable and that because 

Plaintiffs received earlier notice of the Defendant Trusts taking over their loan 

obligations, Plaintiffs could not have been misled in the state court actions. (Joint 

Mot., ECF No. 43, ¶ IIB.)

The parties met with a private mediator, the Hon. Herbert B. Hoffman (Ret.) 

on multiple occasions. All aspects of the settlement were extensively negotiated 

through numerous meetings, telephone conferences and exchanges of 

correspondence, with multiple drafts of the Settlement Agreement being prepared 

before it was presented for the Court’s approval. (Joint Mot. ¶ 2(C).)

B. Settlement and Attorneys’ Fees

Plaintiffs submit declarations detailing that hourly attorneys’ fees expended on 

this case to date total $159,971, more than the $125,000 requested, and that costs 

advanced equal $8,441.67, again more than the $7,500 requested. (ECF No. 47.)

II. ANALYSIS

The FDCPA provides for mandatory attorney fees to be awarded to the 

successful consumer. Tolentino v. Friedman, 46 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 1995); 15 

U.S.C. § 1692k(a). Courts have an obligation to ensure that the attorneys’ fees award, 

Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 

14cv468

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

like the settlement, is reasonable. In re Bluetooth Headsets Prods. Liab. Litig., 654 

F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011). 

However, “[u]nlike most private tort litigants [a plaintiff who brings an 

FDCPA action] seeks to vindicate important . . . rights that cannot be valued solely 

in monetary terms.” Tolentino, 46 F.3d at 652 (quoting City of Riverside v. Rivera, 

477 U.S. 561, 574 (1986)). “The most useful starting point for determining the 

amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the 

litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Tolentino, 46 F.3d at 652 (quoting 

Hensley v. Eckenhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). The Court should also consider the 

novelty and difficulty of the litigated issues; preclusion of employment by the 

attorney due to acceptance of the case; results obtained; experience, reputation and 

ability of the plaintiffs’ attorney; “undesirability” of the case and awards in similar 

cases. Id. 

Plaintiffs’ counsel submits records detailing the number of hours worked on 

this case. The Court finds the number of hours as well as the hourly rate reasonable 

given the experience level of the attorneys involved. Thus, had plaintiffs’ counsel 

been working for a client who paid a reasonably hourly wage, counsel would be 

entitled to $159,971. Counsel is requesting less than this amount or $125,000. The 

Court finds this is reasonable. Although the litigated issues were not novel or 

difficult, they did require much negotiation by the attorneys and the results obtained 

were excellent given plaintiffs’ primary damage was decreased credit scores due to 

the alleged misrepresentations. 

Defendant does not object to Plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement of costs in 

the amount of $7,500.00. Plaintiffs’ counsel detail costs expended that exceed this 

amount. Therefore, the Court finds the requested amount of $7,500 is reasonable and 

grants Plaintiffs’ request for costs. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 

14cv468

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

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (ECF No. 47.) The Court grants Plaintiff $125,000 in 

attorneys’ fees and $7500 in costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 5, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 51 Filed 04/05/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4