1 – OPINION & ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

BRIAN CARLOS, on behalf of himself and 

all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATENAUDE & FELIX A.P.C.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00921-MO

OPINION AND ORDER

MOSMAN, J.,

Following years of litigation, the parties reached an agreement on October 3, 2019, in 

which Plaintiff (“Mr. Carlos”) was awarded $15,000 and reasonable costs and attorney fees, as 

agreed by the parties or determined by the court. Am. J. [ECF 135]. The parties did not reach an 

agreement on the amount of attorney fees, and Mr. Carlos filed the Corrected Motion for 

Attorney Fees on January 8, 2020. Pl.’s Mot. [ECF 149]. Defendant objected. [ECF 164].

LEGAL STANDARD

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) provides that “in the case of any successful action” under the 

Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the defendant is liable for “the costs of the 

action, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court.” This language 

“makes an award of fees mandatory.” Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 978 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). In determining what amount is “reasonable,” courts first “calculate 

Case 3:14-cv-00921-MO Document 169 Filed 04/27/20 Page 1 of 5
2 – OPINION & ORDER

the ‘lodestar figure’ by taking the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation and

multiplying it by a reasonable hourly rate.” Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th 

Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Then courts evaluate the factors discussed in Kerr v. Screen Extras 

Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1975), that were not already subsumed in the lodestar 

calculation. Fischer, 214 F.3d at 1119. These Kerr factors may, in the court’s discretion, be 

taken into account to adjust the lodestar amount. Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 812 (9th Cir. 

2005); see also Morales v. City of San Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (discussing 

the Kerr factors that bear on reasonableness that may be used to adjust the lodestar amount). The 

district court has “considerable discretion” in determining the reasonableness of attorney fees. 

Webb v. Ada Cnty., Idaho, 195 F.3d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1999).

DISCUSSION

The parties have proffered four possible awards of attorney fees, presented here from 

lowest to highest. First, Defendant proposes an award of $350/hour for 294.7 hours, for a total of 

$103,145.1 Def.’s Obj. [164] at 1, 6. Next, Mr. Carlos asserts that Defendant offered him a 

settlement of $240,000 on January 6, 2020, contingent on a confidentiality agreement, which Mr. 

Carlos apparently rejected. Pl.’s Mot. [149] at 2. Defendant does not dispute that it made this 

offer. See generally Def.’s Obj. [164]. Third, Mr. Carlos has proposed a base award of $288,235 

that would cover the actual cost of his attorneys, and finally, he has proposed an enhanced fee 

award of $311,512.50. Pl.’s Mot. [149] at 2.

At the outset, I am going to reject Defendant’s suggested award of $103,145. Defendant 

offered a settlement of much more than that, and that number is, apparently, representative of 

 1 The court arrives at this number based on its own calculations, as Defendant did not 

provide a lump sum number in its brief but did provide a requested number of hours and 

requested hourly rate.

Case 3:14-cv-00921-MO Document 169 Filed 04/27/20 Page 2 of 5
3 – OPINION & ORDER

what Defendant is willing to pay. I am also going to reject Mr. Carlos’s proposed award of 

enhanced fees in the amount of $311,512.50. As Defendant has argued, this was not a 

particularly complex case, and Mr. Carlos’s damages award was quite small—just 5% of the 

base-level attorney fees he proposes, let alone the enhanced fees. Def.’s Obj. [164] at 3-5, 10-11. 

The enhanced fee is simply too far out of proportion with the scope of this litigation and the level 

of success Mr. Carlos achieved.

This leaves me with a range between $240,000 and $288,235 for the proposed lodestar 

amount. In calculating the lodestar, I must first determine whether the attorneys’ proposed hourly 

fees are reasonable, which Mr. Carlos bears the burden to prove. Jordan v. Multnomah Cnty., 

815 F.2d 1258, 1263 (9th Cir. 1987). Mr. Carlos has two attorneys working on this case, Mr. 

Passanante and Mr. Knewton, who charge $425 and $426 per hour, respectively. Pl.’s Mot. [149] 

at 2. When I heard Mr. Carlos’s first petition for attorney fees, I awarded them at a rate of $300 

and $350, respectively. Opinion and Order [ECF 85] at 3, 6. I issued that order four years ago.

Some growth must be expected during that time, so I reject Defendant’s suggestion that the 

award be calculated at $350 per hour.

Mr. Carlos has presented a detailed analysis of why the requested hourly fees are 

reasonable. Pl.’s Mot. [149] at 10-13. In his analysis, he relies on the Oregon State Bar 

Economic Survey, which reports average fees for attorneys in various locations, practices, and 

with varying levels of experience. Id. The Oregon State Bar Economic Survey (the “OSB 

Survey”) is commonly used as an “initial benchmark” for determining reasonable rates in this 

district. Toth v. INA Life Ins. Co. of New York, 2010 WL 170260, at *6 (D. Or. Jan. 13, 2010) 

(citation omitted). Mr. Carlos argues that his lawyers should be classified in the 

Case 3:14-cv-00921-MO Document 169 Filed 04/27/20 Page 3 of 5
4 – OPINION & ORDER

Business/Corporate Litigation category, rather than the Civil Litigation category, which is how 

he derived their fees. Pl.’s Mot. [149] at 10-13.

In my previous order, I awarded fees based on the Civil Litigation category, not 

Business/Corporate, and I do so again now. Opinion and Order [85] at 4-5. Accordingly, I will 

calculate the fees at $400/hour for Mr. Knewtson and $415/hour for Mr. Passanante. Pl.’s Mot. 

[149] at 11-12.

Finally, Defendant argues that I should reduce the hours awarded, based on several 

considerations. Def.’s Obj. [164] 7-10. First, Defendant argues that I should eliminate from the 

award any hours Mr. Carlos’s attorneys spent on his second class action claim. Id. at 7-9. I 

decline to do so. While that claim was ultimately unsuccessful, it was reasonably related to the 

litigation and not out of proportion to the ultimate award of damages. Cabrales v. Cnty. of Los 

Angeles, 864 F.2d 1454, 1465 (9th Cir. 1988) cert. granted, judgment vacated, 490 U.S. 1087 

(1989) and opinion reinstated, 886 F.2d 235 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation and citation 

omitted). The amount of time spent was 148.4 hours, which amounts to about $60,473.2 Def.’s 

Obj. [164] at 8. This amount is not out of proportion to the attorney fees requested overall, nor is 

it wildly out of proportion to the damages award.

Finally, Defendant requests that I deny Mr. Carlos’s attempt to reinstate the hours I 

reduced from his award in 2016. Def.’s Obj. [164] at 9-11. This request, I grant. I decline to 

revisit the ruling I made four years or to attempt to recalculate hours I have already reduced, 

based on the arguments made to me at the time. According to Mr. Carlos’s brief, his lawyers’ 

“prior requested time” comes to 36.70 hours for Mr. Passanante and 106.8 for Mr. Knewtson. 

 2 Based on the court’s calculation using the hourly fees set out above. 

Case 3:14-cv-00921-MO Document 169 Filed 04/27/20 Page 4 of 5
5 – OPINION & ORDER

Pl.’s Mot. [149] at 4. If those are reduced, the total hours awarded will be 119 and 415.7, 

respectively. 

AWARD CALCULATION

As set out above, I am awarding attorney fees at a rate of $400/hour to Mr. Knewtson for 

415.7 hours of work, and at a rate of $415/hour to Mr. Passanante for 119 hours of work. This 

award comes to $166,280 for Mr. Knewtson and $49,385 for Mr. Passanante, for a total award of 

$215,665. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated in this opinion, I GRANT Plaintiff’s Corrected Motion for 

Attorney Fees [149] and award Plaintiff $215,665. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of April, 2020. 

____________________________ 

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge

27

Case 3:14-cv-00921-MO Document 169 Filed 04/27/20 Page 5 of 5