1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

In re: David Anthony Derby, Case No. 17-34385-KLP

Debtor Chapter 13

David Anthony Derby, 

Plaintiff,

v. Adv. Pro. No. 18-03097-KLP

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC,

Defendant.

.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 31, 2017, David Anthony Derby (the “Debtor”) filed a voluntary 

petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Along with the 

petition, the Debtor filed schedules and a statement of financial affairs. Schedule 

E/F lists the Debtor’s unsecured debts, including a debt owed to Capital One Bank, 

N.A. (“Capital One”) in the amount of $679.00. 

After the bankruptcy filing, Capital One sold the debt to the Defendant, 

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA” or the “Defendant”). PRA timely filed a 

proof of claim (“Claim 13-1”), asserting an unsecured claim in the amount of 

$788.53. PRA stated in an attachment to Claim 13-1 that the claim was comprised 

entirely of principal.

On April 10, 2018, the Debtor filed an objection to Claim 13-1 (the “Claim 

Objection”), and on October 1, 2018, the Debtor filed the complaint (the 

“Complaint”) commencing this adversary proceeding. In the Complaint, the Debtor

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 16
2

alleged that PRA, in filing Claim 13-1, failed to comply with Rule 3001 of the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001 (“Rule 3001"). The 

Debtor also asserted a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(“FDCPA”). In addition, the Debtor sought class certification and to be appointed 

class representative on behalf of similarly situated debtors in the Eastern District of 

Virginia. 

On November 2, 2018, PRA filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint (the 

“Motion to Dismiss”). On March 28, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion 

with an accompanying order granting the Motion to Dismiss as to the Debtor’s 

FDCPA allegations, denying PRA’s request to dismiss the Rule 3001 violations, and 

granting the Motion to Dismiss as to the Debtor’s request for declaratory and 

injunctive relief with partial leave to amend. The Court’s order preserved the 

ability of the Court to award fees and costs pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105. The Court 

also ordered that trial of the adversary proceeding be combined with the Claim 

Objection.

On February 8, 2019, PRA filed a motion in the Debtor’s case, Case No. 17-

34385-KLP, for an award of Rule 9011 sanctions (the “Sanctions Motion”) against 

the Debtor due to the Debtor’s having filed the Claim Objection. The parties did not 

seek a ruling on the Sanctions Motion until after the entry of a stipulated 

settlement of the substantive issues of this adversary proceeding. See infra pp. 3-4.

On April 10, 2019, the Debtor filed an amended complaint (the “Amended 

Complaint”) seeking more specific declaratory and injunctive relief. PRA answered 

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 16
3

the Amended Complaint and, thereafter, sought leave to amend Claim 13-1, 

utilizing a proof of claim form it contended complied with Rule 3001. The Debtor 

opposed PRA’s request to amend its proof of claim, contending that PRA’s revised 

form for filing its proofs of claim failed to comply with the requirements of Rule

3001. 

On July 1, 2019, the Court ruled that PRA’s revised proof of claim form 

complied with Rule 3001(c) as set forth in the Court’s earlier decision in Maddux v. 

Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc. (In re Maddux), 567 B.R. 489 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2016) 

(holding that a proof of claim for credit card debt should indicate whether it 

includes previously accrued interest and fees). On July 2, 2019, PRA filed an 

amended claim, claim 13-2 (“Claim 13-2”). PRA subsequently filed a motion to 

strike the class allegations in the Amended Complaint; the Court denied that 

motion without prejudice. The parties thereafter engaged in settlement discussions.

On October 21, 2019, the Court entered a Stipulation and Consent Order 

Regarding Debtor’s Objection to Claim 13-1 and Amended Complaint (the 

“Stipulation”). The Stipulation memorializes the parties’ settlement of the claims 

asserted by the Debtor in the Amended Complaint and the Claim Objection and 

includes the following agreed statements: Claim 13-1 did not comply with 

Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(A) as interpreted in In re Maddux and Claim 13-2

contains an itemization of previously accrued interest and/or fees that is in 

compliance with Rule 3001(c)(2)(A) as interpreted by the Court in its Memorandum 

Opinion entered on July 1, 2019; PRA agreed that any proofs of claim it files in the 

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 16
4

Eastern District of Virginia for charged-off credit cards accounts will be 

substantially in the form of Claim 13-2 or otherwise in compliance with Rule 3001; 

and, PRA agreed that it will amend (or withdraw) certain other, previously filed 

proofs of claim as necessary to bring them in compliance with Rule 3001.1 In 

addition, the Stipulation provides that “Debtor’s counsel may file an application for 

allowance of fees and/or expenses and the Court may award fees or expenses to the 

extent appropriate under Rule 3001(c)(2)(D) and/or 11 U.S.C. § 105 after notice and 

a hearing pursuant to Rule 2002. The Defendant reserves all of its rights to oppose 

the reasonableness of the fees and expenses requested in any application for 

allowance of fees and/or expenses.”2 The Stipulation provides that after payment is 

delivered to Debtor’s counsel upon any amounts awarded by the Court on such a fee 

application, and after the Court rules on the Sanctions Motion, the Debtor will 

dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice, including the Claim Objection.

On November 27, 2019, the Debtor filed Debtor’s Counsel’s Application for 

Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses (the “Fee Application”) seeking approval 

of “reasonable compensation for services rendered by his counsel in reviewing and 

objecting to the claim of Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“PRA”) . . . and in 

pursuing litigation against PRA related to its claim.”3 PRA has objected to the Fee 

Application. A hearing on the Fee Application and the Sanctions Motion was held 

on January 16, 2020.

1 PRA also agreed to pay $2250 to the Debtor.

2 Stipulation, p.4 (Dkt. 66).

3 Fee Application, p.1 (Dkt. 73). The Fee Application was docketed in both the debtor’s main 

case at Dkt. 66 as well as in this adversary proceeding. 

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 16
5

THE FEE APPLICATION

The Debtor’s total request for fees and costs amounts to $171,017.10 in fees 

and $42.00 in expenses. The Fee Application is supported by declarations of counsel 

and by exhibits containing itemizations of time expended, hourly rates, and 

expenses incurred. The Debtor declares that the amount requested reflects a 

voluntary reduction of $16,399.90. The Debtor submits that the amount requested 

is reasonable and supported by the evidence on the record.

PRA opposes the Fee Application, claiming that no exception to the American 

Rule, which requires each party to bear its own fees and expenses, is applicable to 

this case, thus limiting allowable attorney’s fees to those that “satisfy the ‘causation’ 

requirement of Rule 3001(c)(2)(D)(ii).”4 PRA also contends that Bankruptcy Code 

§ 105(a) does not provide authority for awarding attorney’s fees in this case because

the Debtor has failed to demonstrate PRA’s bad faith or violation of any court order. 

PRA further argues that the Debtor’s lack of success in connection with its FDCPA 

claim constitutes grounds for disallowing any fees related to that claim, despite the 

Debtor’s contention that such fees should be allowed because they arise from 

matters interrelated to the Rule 3001(c) violation.

Alternatively, PRA contends that even if the Court determines that PRA 

should be sanctioned under Rule 3001(c)(2)(D)(ii), the amount of fees requested is 

unreasonable when compared to the results obtained. PRA adds that the Debtor’s 

4 See PRA’s Objection to Debtor’s Counsel’s Application for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and 

Expenses, Dkt. 74 p.3.

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 16
6

rejection of PRA’s efforts to resolve issues related to its proof of claim form prior to 

filing the adversary proceeding should be considered a factor when analyzing the 

reasonableness of the fee request. Notably, PRA does not challenge the hourly rates 

or individual time entries as being unreasonable, although it points to an 

unnecessary duplication of efforts resulting from the Debtor’s retention of three 

separate law firms.

THE SANCTIONS MOTION

The Sanctions Motion stems from the Claim Objection5 and asserts, in 

essence, that the Debtor and counsel for the Debtor should be sanctioned because 

“Debtor’s counsel has crossed the line in seeking to disallow claims such as Claim 

13-1 when the Debtor does not legitimately contest the amount, validity or priority 

of the claim . . . .”6 PRA seeks an award of its fees and costs in bringing the 

Sanctions Motion. The Debtor opposes an award of sanctions to PRA, arguing that 

its objection to Claim 13-1 was valid and pursued “in a manner consistent with the 

Bankruptcy Code and Rules . . . .”7

JURISDICTION

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and the General Order of Reference of the U.S. District 

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dated August 15, 1984. This is a core 

proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A),(B), and (C). The parties have agreed 

5 Case No. 17-34385-KLP, Dkt. 28. 6 Case No. 17-34385-KLP, Dkt. 48, p.12.

7 Case No. 17-34385-KLP, Dkt. 50, p.2.

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 16
7

that after ruling upon the Fee Application and the Sanctions Motion, the Court 

shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the Stipulation.8

ANALYSIS

Judge Huennekens’s decision in Maddux v. Midland Credit Management, 

LLC (In re Maddux), 567 B.R. 489 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2016), has guided the Court 

throughout this case and will continue to do so. In Maddux, Judge Huennekens 

rejected the contention that interest on a credit card debt is recapitalized monthly 

so that the total prepetition balance may be properly identified on a proof of claim 

as principal. Id. at 493. After finding that Midland Credit Management’s practice 

of filing proofs of claim falsely stating that the claim did not include interest was in 

violation of Rule 3001, the Court awarded attorney’s fees to the plaintiffs. 

PRA was on notice of this Court’s decision in Maddux9 yet continued to file 

proofs of claim in this District that falsely represented that the claim did not 

include interest.10 The Debtor has asserted that “[t]he reason for the case was that 

Debtor’s counsel learned that, when the Boleman Law Firm began filing objections 

to PRA’s improper proofs of claim, Defendant changed its practice for Boleman 

clients only; although it stopped filing improper proofs of claim for Boleman clients, 

it continued knowingly filing those improper proofs of claim in all other cases 

throughout the Eastern District of Virginia in which Boleman did not represent the 

8 Dkt. 66, p.4. 9 Counsel for PRA represented Midland Credit Management in In re Maddux. Judge 

Huennekens’ opinion requiring the itemization of interest was issued on December 1, 2016.

10 In the Stipulation, the parties stated that Claim 13-1 did not comply with Rule 

3001(c)(2)(A) as interpreted in In re Maddux. 

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 16
8

debtor.”11 PRA does not dispute this assertion.12 Instead, PRA has argued that this 

adversary proceeding was unnecessary because, prior to its filing, it had settled 

similar claim objections and engaged in settlement discussions with Boleman Law, 

the law firm representing the Debtor, regarding PRA’s intention to implement the 

use of a revised, compliant proof of claim form.

PRA’s belief that Boleman Law, or any law firm representing debtors affected 

by PRA’s claims-filing practice, is the arbiter of what constitutes an acceptable proof 

of claim form such that PRA could continue to file, or fail to amend, proofs of claim 

that were clearly contrary to the requirements of Maddux, while at the same time 

attempting to resolve only Boleman Law’s objections on a case-by-case basis, is 

misplaced. PRA was aware of this Court’s decision in Maddux as early as December 

2016 yet chose to continue filing proofs of claim that violated its mandates.13 This 

is evident from the following language included in the Stipulation:

PRA agrees that any proofs of claim it files in the Eastern District of 

Virginia for charged-off credit card accounts purchased from Capital 

One will be substantially in the form of Claim 13-2, or otherwise in 

compliance with Rule 3001 . . .[and as to claims filed by PRA after 

11 Dkt. 74, p.4.

12 The Stipulation includes the following:

PRA agrees that any proofs of claim it files in the Eastern District of Virginia 

for charged-off credit cards accounts will be substantially in the form of Claim 

13-2 or otherwise in compliance with Rule 3001; and, PRA will amend (or 

withdraw) certain other, previously filed proofs of claim as necessary to bring 

them in compliance with Rule 3001.

13 In a supplemental order, entered on February 16, 2017, Judge Huennekens addressed

what would be an acceptable proof of claim in order to comply with Rule 3001(c)(2)(A). 

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 16
9

December 12, 2017] PRA agrees to amend such claims as necessary to 

bring them into compliance with Rule 3001 . . . or voluntarily withdraw 

any such claims if amendment is not feasible.14

That PRA had been previously working with its counsel to develop a revised proof of 

claim form or to create a means to obtain approval of such a proposed revision does 

not provide a satisfactory explanation of its behavior, in light of PRA’s agreement, 

as of the date of the Stipulation in October of 2019, to discontinue filing 

nonconforming proofs of claim and to amend or withdraw previously filed 

noncompliant proofs of claim. The Court must conclude that PRA filed proofs of 

claim that it knew were improper under Maddux. 

In Maddux, Judge Huennekens found that the debtors had been harmed and 

that their recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses caused by Midland’s 

noncompliance with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(A) was warranted under 

Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(D).15 Having found that Midland had acted in good 

faith, and that “[a]dditional sanctions [were] not necessary to deter future 

noncompliance with Bankruptcy Rule 3001,” Judge Huennekens declined to 

disallow Midland’s claims.

Rule 3001 authorizes the Court to sanction the holder of a claim who fails to 

comply with its provisions by awarding “appropriate relief, including reasonable 

14 Stipulation, p.3. 15 567 B.R. at 501. See Rule 3001(c)(2)(D)(ii) (A court may “award other appropriate relief, 

including reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees caused by the failure” of a claimholder to 

provide information requested under Rule 3001.).

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 16
10

expenses and attorney’s fees caused by the failure.”16 PRA has stipulated that its 

proof of claim did not comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(2)(A) as interpreted in

Maddux. The Court finds that an award of attorney’s fees and expenses is the

“appropriate” relief, particularly given PRA’s violation of the Rule in the aftermath 

of Maddux.17

Turning to the amount of attorney’s fees and expenses, the amount awarded 

must be related to PRA’s failure to comply with Rule 3001(c). See Casamatta v. 

Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P. (In re Freeman-Clay), 578 B.R. 423, 447 (Bankr. W.D.

Mo. 2017). PRA contends that if attorney’s fees and expenses are awarded, then 

amounts incurred in connection with the Debtor’s failed FDCPA count must be 

excluded, since they are not causally connected to PRA’s rule violation. The Court 

concurs.

Under the FDCPA, a successful litigant may be entitled to fees and costs. 15 

U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). However, on March 28, 2019, the Court entered its order 

dismissing the Debtor’s FDCPA claim. Additionally, the Stipulation provides for no 

liability under the FDCPA. Because the Debtor’s FDCPA claim was unsuccessful, 

16 Rule 3001(c)(2)(D); Maddux, 567 B.R. at 499.

17 Alternatively, 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), which authorizes the Court to issue any order, process 

or judgment necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title,” provides a 

basis for awarding attorney’s fees and expenses in this case. PRA filed the claim at issue

with full knowledge of In re Maddux’s clear prohibition of the very practice employed by 

PRA. In light of Rule 3001’s explicit authorization to award attorney’s fees and expenses, 

and the agreement to seek only fees and expenses under the Stipulation, the Court need not 

exercise its authority under § 105(a). See Casamatta v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (In 

re Freeman-Clay), 578 B.R. 423, 447-48 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2017) (“Resurgent’s conduct fits 

squarely within the remedies provided in Rule 3001. If Resurgent failed to satisfy the 

requirements of Rule 3001(c) . . . then the remedies enumerated in Rule 3001(c)(2)(D) 

apply. . . It is that straightforward.”).

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 16
11

the Debtor is not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees as a “successful litigant” 

pursuant to § 1692k(a)(3).

The Debtor contends that he should be allowed his attorney’s fees and 

expenses incurred in pursuing the FDCPA claim because it was “reasonable” to 

pursue the claim. The Debtor also argues that the “interrelatedness of the issues”

serves as a basis to allow fees and expenses for unsuccessful claims, in this case the 

FDCPA claim, that are related to claims successfully pursued, in this instance the 

Rule 3001(c) violation.18 The Debtor submits that its voluntary reduction of ten 

percent of its initial fee request of $164,419.00 is sufficient to address the 

interrelatedness of the FDCPA claim with the Rule 3001(c) violation and the results 

obtained, and “to account for any duplication from the work of the three law 

firms.”19 The Court disagrees. The FDCPA claim was based on the alleged 

violation of provisions separate and distinct from Rule 3001(c), and the voluntary 

reduction of ten percent of the initial fee request appears to be an arbitrary number 

that bears no relationship to the actual amounts attributable to the respective 

claims. Moreover, the Court rejects the arguments that fees and expenses 

associated with the FDCPA claim should be allowed because it was reasonable to 

pursue the claim or the FDCPA issues were interrelated to the Rule 3001 violation.

The successful requests for relief in the Amended Complaint were based on 

PRA’s failure to comply with Rule 3001(c) in the Debtor’s and other unnamed 

18 See, e.g., McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d 81, 88 (4th Cir. 2013) (court must “subtract fees for 

hours spent on unsuccessful claims unrelated to successful ones” (citation omitted)). 

19 Dkt. 73, p.7.

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 16
12

debtors’ cases. The Stipulation includes a requirement that PRA review proofs of 

claim filed in cases in which the debtor is not represented by Debtors’ counsel and 

amend the claims, if necessary, to utilize PRA’s revised form.20 Thus, other debtors 

benefitted from Derby’s litigation efforts in connection with the Rule 3001(c) 

violation.21 Therefore, the results obtained through the Amended Complaint and 

Claim Objection provided a benefit greater than the amount received by the Debtor,

and an award of fees and expenses should include amounts properly attributable to 

the Rule 3001 violation. Nevertheless, an appropriate award of fees and expenses 

necessitates the culling of the amounts attributable solely to the FDCPA claim from 

the Debtor’s application. 

PRA has not disputed the Debtor’s contention that the Court should follow 

the lodestar method when determining a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees to be 

allowed. See Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010). PRA has pointed to none of 

the “Johnson factors”22 as providing a basis for a reduction other than the 

duplication of efforts associated with the Debtor’s employment of three separate law 

firms;23 otherwise, the applicants have carried their burden of showing that the 

hourly rates and number of hours are reasonable as to the tasks to which they 

20 Dkt. 66, p. 3. 21 There is no evidence that the failed FDCPA claim was of benefit to anyone, whether party 

to this litigation or not.

22 Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d. 417 (5th Cir. 1947).

23 PRA’s argument that the amount of fees requested is unreasonably excessive in light of 

the results obtained or benefit to creditors is tempered by the Court’s disapproval of fees 

and expenses attributable to the FDCPA claim, which will substantially reduce the amount 

ultimately approved; further, the Court finds that the results obtained merit an award of 

the fees and expenses attributable to the Rule 3001(c) violation as adjusted in accordance 

with this Opinion.

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 16
13

relate. The Court finds that once the actual amount of fees and expenses 

attributable to the Rule 3001(c) violation are distinguished from those fees 

attributable to the FDCPA claim, a further ten percent downward adjustment is 

appropriate in order to account for the duplication of efforts attributable to having 

employed multiple law firms.

Because the Fee Application, as enhanced by Debtor’s Counsel’s Supplement 

to Application for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses,24 does not sufficiently 

distinguish fees and expenses associated with the successful Rule 3001 claims from 

those attributable to the FDCPA claim, the Court is unable to properly review the 

Fee Application, which is necessary in light of the Court’s rejection of the Debtor’s 

proposed ten percent downward adjustment. Accordingly, the Debtor is directed to 

amend the Fee Application to exclude amounts incurred solely in connection with 

the FDCPA claim and include only those fees attributable to the Rule 3001(c) 

violation.

THE SANCTIONS MOTION

The Stipulation preserves PRA’s Sanctions Motion by reciting that it had not 

been withdrawn and that the parties’ resolution contemplates “a ruling” thereon.25 

The Stipulation otherwise resolves the Claim Objection in a manner favorable to 

the Debtor, along with a number of other similarly situated debtors, and includes 

PRA’s acknowledgement that Claim 13-1 did not comply with Bankruptcy Rule 

24 Dkt. 76.

25 Dkt. 64, pp. 2,4.

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 16
14

3001(c)(2)(A) as interpreted by the Court’s recent decision in In re Maddux.26

Nevertheless, PRA is requesting an award of sanctions under Rule 9011(b) 

“sufficient to deter similar conduct by the Debtor, Debtor’s counsel, and others 

similarly situated,”27 and maintains that “not only was there no need to file the 

Adversary Proceeding to coerce PRA into compliance with Rule 3001(c), there was 

no basis for seeking compensation for any harm or loss suffered by other debtors.”28 

Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b), imposes the following

requirements in connection with pleadings and motions: that they not be filed for an 

improper purpose,29 that the legal contentions be warranted under the law,30 and, 

that the factual allegations be supported by evidence.31 PRA contends that the 

Claim Objection was not warranted factually or legally. The Stipulation proves 

otherwise.

The Court has considered the pleadings and the declarations submitted by 

the parties and finds no basis for sanctioning the Debtor or his counsel. The 

Stipulation, under which PRA agreed to alter its practice of filing claims without 

disclosing the interest component, establishes that the Claim Objection was not 

improper.32 

26 Dkt. 64, p. 3.

27 Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9011 at P. 7-8 

(ECF 52

28 PRA’s Objection to Debtor’s Counsel’s Application for Approval of Attorneys’ Fees and 

Expenses at P. 28.

29 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b)(1). 30 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b)(2). 31 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b)(3). 32 In its objection to the Fee Application, PRA describes numerous settlements of similar 

claim objections involving the same debtors’ counsel as a “pattern and practice of settling 

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 16
15

CONCLUSION

The Court finds that the Debtor is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and 

expenses in connection with PRA’s failure to comply with Rule 3001(c). The Debtor 

will be directed to submit a revised fee application in accordance with this 

Memorandum Opinion within twenty-one (21) days of the entry of the Order issued 

simultaneously with this Memorandum Opinion. PRA shall have fourteen (14) days 

after the filing of the revised fee application to file a response, after which the Court 

will determine the appropriate amount of attorney’s fees and expenses to be 

awarded.

For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion, the Motion for 

Sanctions will be denied. An order to this effect will be issued.

Signed: March 31, 2020 /s/ Keith L. Phillips

United States Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on docket: March 31, 2020

Copies:

Thomas D. Domonoske 

Elizabeth Wilson Hanes 

Consumer Litigation Associates 

763 J. Clyde Morris Blvd, Suite 1-A 

Newport News, VA 23601

Mark C. Leffler 

Emily Connor Kennedy 

Boleman Law Firm, P.C. 

P.O. Box 11588 

Richmond, VA 23230

the claim objections filed by Debtor’s Counsel . . . .” Dkt. 72, p.6. One would question why 

PRA would previously respond to claim objections by offering a settlement if it perceived 

such objections to be in violation of Rule 9011.

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 16
16

Dale W. Pittman, Esq. 

The Law Office of Dale W. Pittman, P.C. 

The Eliza Spotswood House 

112-A West Tabb Street 

Petersburg, VA 23803

Justin F. Paget 

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP 

951 E. Byrd Street 

Richmond, VA 23219

Carl M. Bates, Esquire 

Chapter 13 Trustee 

P.O. Box 1819 

Richmond, VA 23218 

David Anthony Derby 

18277 Democracy Avenue 

Ruther Glen, VA 22546 

Case 18-03097-KLP Doc 79 Filed 03/31/20 Entered 03/31/20 22:49:48 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 16