Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01503/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01503-0/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

05cv1503-BLM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMONA GRANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN AGENCIES,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 05cv1503-BLM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND

COSTS

[Doc. No. 40]

On April 17, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney’s fees and

costs incurred during the instant action. Doc. No. 40 (“Motion”).

Defendant opposed this motion on April 30, 2008 (“Opp’n”). Doc. No. 41.

On May 6, 2008, Plaintiff filed a reply. Doc. No. 43 (“Reply”). The

Court heard arguments on the motion on June 6, 2008. For the reasons

stated on the record at the hearing, and as enumerated below,

Plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART as follows.

 BACKGROUND

This case concerns allegedly wrongful debt collection practices by

Defendant, a debt collector. In July 2005, Plaintiff filed a complaint,

alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(“FDCPA”), and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Case 3:05-cv-01503-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/27/08 Page 1 of 7
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 05cv1503-BLM

(“RFDCPA”). Doc. No. 1 (Complaint). Defendant’s alleged wrongdoing

stems from a collection letter Defendant sent to Plaintiff, implying

that an attorney retained by Defendant was helping collect a disputed

debt, when in fact he was not. Id. Plaintiff argued that such behavior

constituted “false, deceptive, or misleading representations or means in

connection with the collection of an alleged debt,” in violation of the

FDCPA and the RFDCPA. Id. Although Plaintiff initially filed the

instant case as a class action, she later decided not to pursue class

certification. Motion at 5. Concurrent with the instant federal

action, Defendant pursued a state court action against Plaintiff, and

won a judgment on the underlying disputed debt. Id. 

In September 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint (Doc. No. 6), which was granted in part in August 2006 (Doc.

No. 14). After conducting partial discovery, the parties executed a

settlement agreement in June 2007. Doc. No. 48 (settlement agreement,

filed under seal). The agreement provided, inter alia, that Defendant

would pay Plaintiff’s “reasonable” attorney’s fees and costs. Id. If

the parties could not reach a mutually acceptable “reasonable” figure,

the agreement permitted Plaintiff to ask the Court to determine the

amount. Id. On June 27, 2007, shortly after the parties executed the

settlement agreement, they stipulated to this Court’s jurisdiction over

“all disputes arising out of the terms of the settlement agreement once

completed.” Doc. No. 39. 

 DISCUSSION

Plaintiff requests $44,422.75 in fees incurred by attorneys Joshua

Swigart and Douglas Campion, as well as $537.92 in costs. Motion.

These figures include time spent litigating the federal (but not state)

action, attempting to settle the federal action, and drafting the motion

Case 3:05-cv-01503-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 7
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 05cv1503-BLM

for fees. Id. Plaintiff also requests $5,197.50 in attorney’s fees,

incurred preparing a reply to Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s

original motion. Reply. In total, Plaintiff requests $50,158.17 in

fees and costs. 

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion should be denied as

untimely under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under the doctrine

of laches, and under Local Rule 83.4, which prohibits “delaying

tactics.” Opp’n at 6-9. Defendant also argues that the fee award

should be reduced because Defendant made a settlement offer to

Plaintiff’s attorneys, which they allegedly failed to communicate to

their client. Id. at 9-13. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff’s

attorneys’ hourly billing rates are excessive. Id. at 13-14. For the

reasons stated on the record at the hearing, the Court is not persuaded

by these arguments, and declines to reduce or deny the requested fee

amount on these grounds. 

Defendant also argues that the number of hours for which Plaintiff

requests fees is excessive, and that some of Plaintiff’s billing entries

are not justified. Opp’n at 16-25. Defendant further argues, and

Plaintiff concedes, that Plaintiff may not recover fees for efforts

expended on behalf of the state court action. Id. at 14-16; Motion at 13

(Plaintiff’s attorneys “excising fees and costs spent on defending the

Defendant’s state court action”). For the reasons provided by the Court

at the hearing, the Court finds merit in these arguments as applied to

certain billing entries, and reduces Plaintiff’s fee award as follows.

a. Excessive or Unsubstantiated Billing: 

• Plaintiff requests reimbursement for 40.9 hours of fees

expended in drafting the instant motion. This represents 16.8

///

Case 3:05-cv-01503-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/27/08 Page 3 of 7
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

Plaintiff attaches declarations by her attorneys to both the fees motion and the

reply. Unless stated otherwise, citations to declarations refer to those accompanying

the motion. 

2

The Court uses the following hourly rates, as provided by Plaintiff: $315/hour

for Joshua Swigart, $375/hour for Douglas Campion, and $95/hour for Tiffany Jensen and

Louisa Parra. (Decl. Swigart Ex. I & Declaration of Campion Ex. E). Though Defendant

argues that the attorneys’ rates are excessive (Opp’n at 13-14), the Court finds them

reasonable for the reasons stated on the record.

4 05cv1503-BLM

hours billed by attorney Joshua Swigart (Decl. Swigart1 Ex. I

at 9-11), .6 hours billed by paralegal Luisa Parra (id. at

11), 12.5 hours billed by law clerk Tiffany Jensen (id.), and

11 hours billed by attorney Douglas Campion (Decl. Campion Ex.

E at 10-11). At each individual’s billing rate,2 the total

requested for drafting the motion is $10,661.50. For the

reasons stated on the record, the Court finds this sum

unreasonable, and reduces it by one-third. Therefore,

$3,553.84 (three thousand five hundred fifty-three dollars and

eighty-four cents) shall be deducted from the total fee

request.

• As stated at the hearing, the Court also finds Plaintiff’s

request for 1.5 hours of Ms. Parra’s time to “create tables

MSJ” on April 15, 2008 (Decl. Swigart at 11) to be excessive

and inadequately supported, and therefore declines to include

it in the fee award. Therefore, the fee request shall be

reduced by an additional $142.50 (one hundred forty-two

dollars and fifty cents). 

• Also, as stated at the hearing, the Court rejects as

insufficiently defined and supported Plaintiff’s request for

.8 hours of Ms. Parra’s time on April 23, 2007 “entering data

billing report.” Id. at 10. The $76.00 (seventy six dollars)

requested for this task is therefore deducted from the total

Case 3:05-cv-01503-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/27/08 Page 4 of 7
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

These 1.9 hours represent the sum of the following entries for Mr. Swigart:

September 12, 2005, .1 hours; September 28, 2005, .3 hours; December 4, 2005, .3 hours;

November 28, 2005, .3 hours; December 8 2006, .2 hours; January 5, 2007, .2 hours;

January 10, 2007, .4 hours; February 9, 2007, .1 hours. 

5 05cv1503-BLM

fee request. 

b. Hours Expended on the State Court Action: Plaintiff concedes

that she cannot recover fees for time spent by her attorneys

defending the state court action. Motion at 13. However, as

argued by Defendant both in writing and at the hearing,

Plaintiff failed to excise all such fees from her request.

Opp’n at 15-16. The Court therefore deducts $2,535.75 (two

thousand five hundred thirty-five dollars and seventy-five

cents) from the total fee request. See id. (listing statecourt-related fees for which Plaintiff cannot recover). 

c. Non-Legal Duties Performed by Attorneys: 

• As stated by the Court at the hearing, it is unreasonable for

Plaintiff’s attorneys to perform, and then request attorneyrate reimbursement for, administrative duties which could have

been performed by non-attorneys. Therefore, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees for a combined 1.9

hours of Joshua Swigart’s “filing,” “faxing,” and “sending”

documents. Decl. Swigart Ex. I at 2-10.3 Instead, these

hours will be reimbursed at Mr. Swigart’s legal assistant’s

rate of $95/hour. Therefore, the fee request shall be reduced

by $415 (four hundred and fifteen dollars), equaling the

difference between $595.50 (1.9 hours x Mr. Swigart’s rate of

$315/hour) and $180.50 (1.9 hours x Ms. Parra’s rate of

$95/hour). 

• Further, as stated at the hearing, the Court finds it

Case 3:05-cv-01503-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/27/08 Page 5 of 7
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

Doc. No. 43-6 is a declaration by Joshua Swigart detailing the time spent on

drafting the reply brief. This document contains a table enumerating specific tasks

and the time spent on each. For example: “5/6/08, Complete final revisions to Reply

brief, 1.5 [hours].” These entries add up to a total of 9.8 hours, not the 16.5 hours

stated by Plaintiff. 

6 05cv1503-BLM

unreasonable for Mr. Swigart to charge for personally handdelivering documents to the Court, when the Court informed him

that he could fax or mail such documents. Therefore, the fee

request shall be reduced by $283.50 (two hundred eighty-three

dollars and fifty cents), representing .9 hours charged by Mr.

Swigart for hand-delivering documents on October 25, 2006 and

January 10, 2007. Decl. Swigart Ex. I at 4 and 6. 

d. Plaintiff’s Miscalculation of Hours: Plaintiff states that

Joshua Swigart spent 16.5 hours drafting Plaintiff’s reply

brief, and requests $5,197.50 for this time. (Reply, Decl.

Swigart Ex. I at 2-3, multiplying 16.5 hours by Mr. Swigart’s

rate of $315/hour). Though Defendant did not address this

issue, by the Court’s calculation, the listed entries only add

up to 9.8 hours to draft the reply, equaling $3,087.4 Id.

Therefore, the fee request shall be reduced by $2,110.50 (two

thousand one hundred ten dollars and fifty cents),

representing the difference between these two amounts. 

For the reasons stated here and on the record, the above amounts

shall be deducted from Plaintiff’s requested fee award.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff requests a total of $50,158.17 in fees and costs. For

the reasons stated in this Order and on the record, this request shall

be reduced by a total of $9,117.09 (nine thousand one hundred seventeen

dollars and nine cents), representing the sum of the deductions listed

above. Therefore, the Court finds a reasonable final award of fees and

Case 3:05-cv-01503-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/27/08 Page 6 of 7
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

7 05cv1503-BLM

costs to be $41,041.08 (forty-one thousand forty-one dollars and eight

cents). 

Defendant is therefore ordered to pay $41,041.08 (forty-one

thousand forty-one dollars and eight cents) to Plaintiff’s counsel on or

before July 18, 2008, and to file a declaration confirming payment on or

before July 22, 2008. If Defendant timely files its declaration

confirming payment, the Clerk’s Office shall close the case in its

entirety. If Plaintiff does not receive the full payment by July 18,

2008, she shall file a statement to that effect on or before July 22,

2008, the case shall remain open, and Defendant may be subject to

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 27, 2008

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO: 

HONORABLE NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01503-BLM Document 50 Filed 06/27/08 Page 7 of 7