FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T AUGUST 25, 2010 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 23 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 7- cv -0 19 35 -T-EAJ AHMET HEPSEN, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us J.C . CHRISTENSEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st25 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, PRYOR an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Thi s ap pe al co nc ern s an awardof a tt orne y s’ fees un de r th e Fai r Deb t Co ll ect io n P ract ic es Act (“ FDCPA”) , 15 U.S.C. § 1 69 2 e t s eq . After aon e-d aybe nc h tria l b efo re a m ag is tra te jud ge , Defen da ntJ.C. Ch ris te ns enan d As so ci at es ,

In c. (“ Ch ris te ns en ”), was fou ndto ha ve co m m it te d t wo v io la ti on s o f th e FDCPA. The m ag is tra te jud ge award edPla in ti ff Ah m etHeps en(“ Hep se n” ) $5 00 in st atut ory da m ag es . Havi ng pre va il edinhi s FDC PA act io n, Hep se n fi le d am ot io n fo r anawardof a tt orne y s’ fees un de r th e FDCPA. At t he ti m e th e m ag is tra te jud ge rul edon th e m ot io n, Hep se n s ou gh t $ 54 ,27 3.5 0 i n a tt orne y s’ fees . Heps en 1 di d n otrece iv e th e reque st ed$5 4,2 73 .50 . Inde te rm in in g areas on ab le fee awa rd , th e m ag is tra te jud ge setAtt orne y Co nd on ’s reas on ab le ho ur ly rate at$3 00 , in st eadof t he $3 50 reque st ed . The m ag is tra te jud ge th enreduc edth e to ta l h ou rs by fifty pe rcen t, fro m

16 5.6 ho ur s t o 82 .8 h ou rs , onth e g ro un ds th atth e to ta l h ou rs bi ll edwere ex ces si ve , ti m e en tri es were v ag ue , andbi ll in g fo r co -co un se ls ’ se rv ic e was un ne ces sa ry . Usin g t he se fig ur es , th e m ag is tra te jud ge cal cu la te d alo de st ar am ou ntof $ 25 ,15 3.5 0. The 2 m ag is tra te jud ge th enreduc edth atlo de st ar am ou ntby an ad di ti on al ten pe rcen t ba se d o n re su lt s o bt ai ne d, re su lt in g i n afin al fee awardof $ 22 ,63 8.1 5. Afte r hi s m ot io n fo r rec on si de rat io n was de ni ed , Heps enti m el y ap pe al ed Hepse n orig inally

sought $126,187.35 in fees ba sed on a 2.5 multiplier of the f ee 1 awa rd. He psen withdrew

that reque st beforethe mag istrate judg e rule d on his moti on. The total amount includes 3.3 hour s of par aleg al work a t an hourly

rateof $95. 2 Neither of these f igur es is challeng ed on appe al. 2th e fee award . After r ev ie w of t he reco rdan d t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs , we affi rm . I. DISCUSS ION

“ W e . . . revi ew th e d is tri ctco urt’s awar d o f at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts for ab us e o f di sc ret io n, re vi si ti ng qu es ti on s o f law de n ov o a ndrev ie win g s ub si di ary fin di ng s o f fac t fo r cl ear e rro r.” Atl an taJ. & C on st . v. Ci ty of Atl an taDep’t o f Avi at io n, 4 42 F.3d12 83 , 12 87 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). A. Hou rly Rate Hep se n c on te nd s tha t the $3 00 ho ur ly rate s etby the m ag is tra te jud ge was anab us e o f di sc ret io n. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge rev ie wedPla in ti ff’s aff id av it s fr om Att orne y Co nd on an d a no th er at to rn ey , Kerry Bro wn. Bo th affi da vi ts st at edth at anho ur ly rate o f $3 50 was re as on ab le . The m ag is tra te jud ge als o re vi ewed affi da vi ts fro m

Ch ris te ns en ’s cou ns el , Ernes t Ko hl m y er, an d Dal e Gol de n, a l oc al at to rn ey who hand le s FDC PA cas es . Koh lmy er as se rte d t ha t FDC PA at to rn ey s i n th e Tam paareage ne ral ly recei ve ho ur ly rates of $ 17 5 t o $ 25 0. Go ld enst at edth at $2 50 was t he m ax im

um reas on ab le ho ur ly rate fo r FDCPA at to rn ey s i n t he Tam pa area . The m ag is tra te jud ge als o re vi ewedrece ntfee awa rd s t o C on do n’s fi rm for FDCPA ca se s an d re cen t fe e award s i n F DCPA cas es inth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Fl or id a. The fe es inth e rec en t ca se s fr om th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctran ge d fr om ho ur ly rat es of $ 20 0 t o $ 35 0. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t the cas e was of a 3“ ro ut in e, strai gh tfo rwardna tu re,” b utbe cau se itwas t rie d, “ itrequi reda cert ai n

am ou ntof e xp ert is e in bo th th e FDCPA an d fe de ral civ il pro cedur e an d tria l pr act ic e.” Inli gh t o f th os e co ns id erat io ns , th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t $3 00 was areas on ab le ho ur ly rate.

“ A reas on ab le ho ur ly rate i s the pre va il in g m ark etrat e in th e rel ev an t l eg al co m m un ity forsi m il ar s erv ic es by lawy ers of r eas on ab ly com pa rab le sk il ls , ex pe rie nc e, an d re pu ta ti on .” Norm anv. Ho us . Auth. o f Mo nt go m ery, 83 6 F .2d 12 92 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). A part y see ki ng fees m

us t p ro du ce s at is fact ory ev id en ce tha t the fee s ou gh t i s i n l in e wit h p rev ai li ng m ark etrat es . Loran ge r v. St ie rh ei m , 10 F.3d77 6, 7 81 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ). Sat is fact ory ev id en ce en ta il s m or e th ananaffi da vi t o f th e at to rn ey pe rfo rm in g t he work . Id. Inth is m at te r, “ [a] cou rt . . . ‘ is it se lf an e xp erton th e que st io n a ndm ay co ns id er i ts ownkn owl ed ge an d ex pe rie nc e co nc ern in g re as on ab le an d p ro pe r fee s an d m ay form anin de pe nd en t jud gm en t ei th er wi th or wi th ou t the aidof wi tn es se s as to va lu e.’” Id. (quo ti ng Norm an , 83 6 F .2dat 1 30 3) . The m ag is tra te jud ge di d n otab us e h er d is cret io n i n s et ti ng th e rea so nabl e ho ur ly rate at$3 00 . The m ag is tra te jud ge co ns id eredaffi da vi ts fro m bo thsi de s, fee a ward s i n s im il ar ca se s, s ee No rm an , 83 6 F .2dat 1 29 9 (n ot in g t ha t re as on ab le rat e is de te rm in edby referen ce t o “ si m il ar s erv ic es by lawy ers of r eas on ab ly 4co m

pa rab le sk il ls ”), an d h er o wn ex pe rie nc e in set ti ng th e fee . There is no in di cat io n tha t the m ag is tra te jud ge ’s in de pe nd en t ju dg m en t tha t $ 30 0 was a reas on ab le ho ur ly rate was cle arl y erro ne ou s. Th e fee was wi th in th e ran ge de sc rib edby the ex pe rts an d c omm en su rat e wit h fe e award s i n s im il ar ca se s. Acco rd in gl y , we con cl ud e th atth e m ag is tra te jud ge di d n otab us e h er d is cret io n i n se tt in g t he reas on ab le ho ur ly rate. B. Rea so nabl e Num

be r of Hou rs Hep se n c on te nd s tha t the m ag is tra te jud ge ab us edhe r di sc ret io n b y reduc in g t he nu m

be r of ho ur s re qu es te d b y

fif ty perce ntto arri ve at the nu m be r of ho ur s re as on ab ly exp en de d. Hep se n re qu es te d re im bu rs em en t fo r 16 5.6 ho ur s, ex cl us iv e o f pa ral eg al ti m e. The m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t anacro ss -th ebo ardreduc ti on , as o pp os edto anho ur -b y -h ou r an al y si s, was ap pr op ria te be cau se

“ Pl ai nt iff’s in vo ic es co nt ai n num ero us in st an ces of e xc es si ve or r edun da ntbi ll in g orva gu e ti m e en tri es .” The m ag is tra te jud ge th enwenton to de ta il a nu m be r of ex am pl es of r edun da nt , exc es si ve , or v ag ue en tri es , as wel l as en tri es see ki ng rei m bu rs em en t fo r no n- co m

pe ns ab le cle ric al workpe rfo rm edby an at to rn ey . The m ag is tra te jud ge als o n ot edm ul ti pl e in st an ces wher e n on -co m pe ns ab le cle ric al work was “bl oc k b il le d” with l eg al tas ks witho utdi st in gu is hi ng be twee n the two . Inli gh t o f th os e fac to rs , th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t a f ift y pe rcen t 5reduc ti on was app ro pr iate “ du e to th e ex ces si ve nu m be r of ho ur s cl ai m ed , vag ue ti m e en tri es , andbi ll in g fo r co -co un se ls ’ [unn eces sa ry ] se rv ic es .” Afte r th e reduc ti on , th e m ag is tra te jud ge setth e rea so nabl e num be r of co m pe ns ab le ho ur s at 82 .8 h ou rs . Inasc ert ai ni ng th e rea so nabl e num be r of ho ur s s pe nton th e li ti ga ti on ,

“ ex ces si ve , redun da ntor o th erwi se un ne ces sa ry ho ur s s ho ul d b e ex cl ud edfro m th e am ou ntcla im ed .” Norm an , 83 6 F .2dat 1 30 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om itte d) . “ Whe n adi stric t co urt fi nd s the nu m be r of ho ur s cl ai m edis un reas on ab ly hig h, the co urt h as two ch oi ces : i t m ay co nduc t an ho ur -b y -h ou r an al y si s o r itm ay

reduc e th e reque st edho ur s wi th anacro ss -th e-b oa rdcu t.” Bi vi ns v. Wrap ItUp, In c., 54 8 F .3d13 48 , 13 50 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Altho ug h a n ho ur -b y -h ou r ap pr oa chis so m et im es pre ferabl e, “ fee d oc um en ta ti on canbe so vo lu m in ou s as to ren de r anho ur -b y -h ou r rev ie w im pr act ic al .” Lora ng er, 1 0 F .3d at78 3. In su chcas es , an a cro ss -th e-b oa rdcut m ay be ap pr op ria te , as l on g a s a co urt “ art ic ul at e[s ] [it s] reas on s fo r se le ct in g s pe ci fic pe rcen ta ge reduc ti on s.” Id .

“ Inth e fi na l an al y si s, ex cl us io ns forex ces si ve or u nn eces sa ry workon gi ve n t as ks m us t b e le ft t o the di sc ret io n o f th e d is tri ctco urt.” Id . The m ag is tra te jud ge di d n otab us e h er d is cret io n i n d et erm in in g t ha t the reas on ab le nu m

be r of co m pe ns ab le ho ur s was 82 .8 h ou rs . The m ag is tra te jud ge

6co nc lu de d t ha t n otall of t he reque st edti m e was co m pe ns ab le be cau se th e num be r of ho ur s cl ai m edwas e xc es si ve , m an y of t he ti m e en tri es were v ag ue , andbi ll in g fo r co -co un se ls ’ se rv ic es was u nn eces sa ry an d c it ednu m ero us ex am pl es of s uc h en tri es . There is no in di cat io n i n t he reco rdth atth e m ag is tra te jud ge cle arl y erre d in th atres pe ct . The m ag is tra te jud ge als o a rti cu late d t he reas on forreduc in g t he ho ur s cl ai m edby fifty

pe rcen t, n am el y

th at“ th e num

be r of ho ur s b il le d v as tl y ex ceed s wh atwas n eces sa ry to pro se cu te Pla in ti ff’s cl ai m s an d i t ap pe ars th atat le as t h al f of

Pla in ti ff’s co un se l’s t im e en tri es lac k s uf fic ie ntde ta il to en ab le th e co urt t o d et erm in e th e n atur e o f th e se rv ic e p ro vi de d.” There is als o n o i nd ic at io n th atth e m ag is tra te jud ge cle arl y erre d i n re ach in g t ha t co nc lu si on . Thu s, we co nc lu de th atth e m ag is tra te jud ge di d n otab us e h er d is cret io n i n s et ti ng th e reas on ab le nu m

be r of co m pe ns ab le ho ur s s pe nton th e li ti ga ti on . C. Reduc ti onforRes ul ts Obt ai ne d Fi na ll y , Heps ench al le ng es th e m ag is tra te jud ge ’s dec is io n t o re du ce the fee awardanad di ti on al ten pe rcen t fo r res ul ts ob ta in edas a n abu se of d is cret io n. Th e m ag is tra te jud ge no te d t ha t Hep se n s ou gh t t o re co ve r $1 ,00 0 i n s ta tu to ry da m ag es , $2 ,50 0 i n a ctua l d am ag es , andpuni ti ve da m ag es inanun sp eci fie d a m ou nt , bu t on ly actu al ly recov ered$5 00 inst atut ory da m ag es . In l ig htof He ps en ’s li m it ed su cces s i n t ha t re ga rd , th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t an ad di ti on al ten 7pe rcen t re du ct io n was ap pr op ria te .

“ Afte r th e lo de st ar i s d et erm in edby m ul ti pl ic at io n o f a rea so nabl e h ou rly rat e ti m es ho ur s re as on ab ly exp en de d, the co urt m us t n ex t co ns id er the ne ces si ty of anad jus tm en t fo r res ul ts ob ta in ed .” Norm an , 83 6 F .2dat 1 30 2. “ If the res ul t was parti al or l im it edsu cces s, the n t he lo de st ar m us t b e reduc edto anam ou ntth at is no t ex ces si ve .” Id . “ Indo in g s o, the co urt m ay att em ptto id en ti fy

sp eci fic ho ur s s pe ntinun su cces sf ul cla im s o r itm ay

si m pl y reduc e th e awardby som e pr op orti on .” Id . “ A reduc ti on is ap pr op ria te if the rel ie f, ho wev er s ig ni fic an t, i s li mit edinco m

pa ris on to th e sc op e o f th e li ti ga ti on as awho le .” Id . “ [T]he rel ie f a pl ai nt iff reque st edis in de edrel ev an t t o d et erm in in g t he ex te ntof t ha t p la in ti ff’s su cces s.” Po ph am

v. Ci ty of Ken ne sa w, 82 0 F .2d15 70 , 15 81 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). The m ag is tra te jud ge di d n otab us e h er d is cret io n i n c on cl ud in g t ha t a t en pe rcen t re du ct io n was ap pr op ria te inli gh t o f th e res ul ts ob ta in ed . Heps enon ly ach ie ve d p art ia l s uc ces s b ecau se alt ho ug h h e so ug htst atut ory , actua l, an d p un it iv e da m ag es , he u lt im at el y

on ly recov ereda po rti onof t he st atut ory da m ag es so ug ht . The re i s n o i nd ic at io n i n t he reco rdth atth e m ag is tra te jud ge ab us edhe r di sc ret io n in co nc lu di ng th atsu chli m it edsu cces s warran te d aten pe rcen t re du ct io n. Thus , we co nc lu de th atth e m ag is tra te jud ge di d n otab us e h er d is cret io n i n t ha t re sp ect . II. CONCLUSION

8Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we co nc lu de th atth e m ag is tra te jud ge di d n ot

ab us e h er d is cret io n i n c al cu lati ng th e rea so nabl e at to rn ey s’ fees inth e cas e. AFFIRMED.

9