1 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ROBERT LEVANDER, 

 Case No. 2:08-cv-14241 

 Plaintiff, 

-vs- Hon: David M. Lawson 

I.C. SYSTEM, INC., a foreign 

corporation, and JOHN DOE, 

 Defendants. 

REX ANDERSON, P.C. DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

Rex C. Anderson (P47068) Gregory R. Neidle (P59273) 

Attorney for Plaintiff Daniel J. Ammon (P50923) 

9459 Lapeer Road, Suite 101 Attorneys for Defendants 

Davison, MI 48423 30150 Telegraph Road 

Phone: (810) 653-3300 Suite 410 

Fax: (810) 658-2510 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

Email: rex@andersonpc.com Phone: (248) 723-9511 

 Fax: (248) 723-9531 

Email: gneidle@dobbsneidle.com 

 dammon@dobbsneidle.com 

DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION

TO PLAINTIFF’S FEE APPLICATION

Defendants, by and through their attorney Gregory R. Neidle, object to the Fee 

Application of Plaintiff’s counsel. Defendants respectfully ask this Court to deny Plaintiff’s fee 

application and instead fix an award that is in keeping with the “reasonable” requirement of 

the 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3), established case law and other persuasive authority. 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.992 Filed 06/20/09 Page 1 of 18
 2 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

BACKGROUND

The $1,000.00 Case 

Plaintiff’s fee application represents a windfall to Plaintiff’s counsel, Mr. Rex Anderson 

and co-counsel, Mr. Brian Parker. They seek over $62,000.00 in attorney fees and costs 

from Defendants for their work in this Fair Debt Collection Pratcies Act (“FDCPA”) case. This 

Court is reminded 3.33 hours of counsel’s time at $300.00 per hour1

 equals the $1000.00 

maximum potential damage award available to Plaintiff at the time he filed his Complaint. 

Well before Plaintiff filed this matter, both Plaintiff and his counsels knew this case was worth 

no more than $1000.00. On May 28, 2008 – 128 days before this suit was filed, Plaintiff and 

his spouse filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Mr. Anderson also represented Plaintiff in the 

bankruptcy. Significantly, on Schedules B & C of his bankruptcy petition, Plaintiff valued his 

potential FDCPA claim at $1,000.00. (Exhibit 1). Plaintiff did so under penalty of perjury. In 

his Motion for Abandonment of this FDCPA claim filed in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy, Plaintiff again 

represented to the Bankruptcy Court and Collene Corcoran, the Chapter 7 Trustee, (Exhibit 

2: 02/04/09 Affidavit of Collene K. Corcoran), that his claims were of inconsequential 

value. In reliance on these representations, the bankruptcy court granted debtor’s motion 

which a;;owed Plaintiff to pursue this matter in his own name outside of the bankruptcy. 

(Exhibit 3). 

This case was filed on October 3, 2008. Absent actual damages as is the case here, 

the Plaintiff Robert Levander’s retainer agreement with his attorney, Rex Anderson, entitles 

Plaintiff to receive $1,000.00. (See “Consumer Law Retainer Agreement”, Exhibit 4). The 

Retainer Agreement entitles Anderson to all additional attorney fees and costs. Ibid. On 

 

1

Defendants do not concede that $300.00 per hour is reasonable and customary as the rate applies to this 

matter.

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.993 Filed 06/20/09 Page 2 of 18
 3 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

January 27, 2009, immediately after learning that Plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy2, 

Defendant’s counsel alerted Mr. Anderson that this case was only worth $1,000.00. (Exhibit 

5) Later, on March 6, 2009, Defendants then filed a Motion to Limit Damages (Doc. 27) 

asserting because Plaintiff represented in his bakruptcy proceeding that the value of his 

FDCPA claim was no more than $1,000.00, Plaintiff must be judicially estopped from claiming 

in the instant matter that he entitled to more than $1,000.00. The motion was not heard until 

May 18, 2009. At the hearing on Defendant’s Motion to Limit Damages, Mr. Anderson 

represented to the Court that the average settlement for an FDCPA case is between 

$3,500.00 to $5,0000.00 with $1,000.00 of the settlement reserved for the plaintiff. (Exhibit 6

- May 18, 2009 Hearing Transcript, p. 25). 

On May 19, 2009, the Court ruled, in part, that Plaintiff’s damages could not exceed 

$1,000.00. (Doc. 61) (Exhibit 7: May 19, 2009 Order). After the Court’s ruling, Defendants 

filed a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment which was accepted by Plaintiff. (Doc. 63). The court’s 

May 18, 2009 ruling confirmed that this matter is only worth $1000.00. The unpaid Target 

credit card balance for $1,209.38 which was the basis for the FDCPA claim was previously 

discharged by the bankruptcy court (Exhibit 8: September 29, 2008 Discharge of Debtor). 

In this context, Plaintiff’s counsel now seeks a total award of $51,884.47 ($64,855.59 

discounted 20%) with regard to his fees and costs, where Plaintiff’s maximum recovery was 

$1,000.00. This is not appropriate especially where Defendants were forced to litigate this 

matter - including the issue that Plaintiff’s claim was only worth $1,000.00. Upon review of 

this memorandum and the docket entries in this matter, it is clear that Plaintiff’s attorney fee 

award should be no more than $4,000.00. 

 

2

Defendants learned that Plaintiff had filed for bankruptcy on or about January 27, 2009, not on December 1, 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.994 Filed 06/20/09 Page 3 of 18
 4 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

ARGUMENT

I. Plaintiff’s Counsel Is Only Entitled To A “Reasonable” Attorney Fee 

The FDCPA provides that “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of 

this subchapterKis liable to such person” for damages, as well as “the costs of the action, 

together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court”. 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3) 

(emphasis added). As the Sixth Circuit enumerated in Cramblit v. Fikse, 33 F.3d 633 (6th Cir. 

1994), “[A]fter considering the amount and nature of damages awarded, the court may 

lawfully award low fees or no fees”. 

The Sixth Circuit has also held that attorneys cannot be compensated for wasteful 

litigation. In Lee v. Thomas & Thomas, 109 F.3d 302 (6th Cir. 1997), the district court found 

that the attorney time spent on an FDCPA case was “economic waste” and disallowed any 

attorney fees after the first Offer of Judgment. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the 

decision, noting “A reasonable feeKis one that is adequate to attract competent counsel but 

[does] not produce windfalls to attorneys”. Id. at 307 (quoting Hadix v. Johnson, 65 F.3d 532, 

535 (6th Cir. 1995)). In reaching its decision, the court noted that: 

The Congress that passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in 1977 could 

have hardly have wished to reward lawyers for doing nonproductive work as 

wasting their adversaries’ time and the time of the courts as well. In directing 

the courts to award “reasonable” fees, on the contrary, Congress undoubtedly 

wished to ensure that the lawyer representing a successful plaintiff would 

receive a reasonable fee for work reasonably found necessary – nothing less, 

and nothing more. 

Id. at 306-07. 

 In this case, the majority of the litigation concerns the March 6, 2009 Motion to Limit 

Damages (Doc 27). The docket sheet consists of 68 entries. (Exhibit 10). Of the entries, 

Doc’s 23 – 39, 44 – 46, 50 and 57 relate exclusively to the damages issue. 

 

2008 as alleged by Plaintiff in his Fee Application. 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.995 Filed 06/20/09 Page 4 of 18
 5 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

On its face and in light of the fact this matter was never worth more than $1,000.00, 

Plaintiff’s fee request represents a windfall to counsel and is also contrary to the authorities 

cited above under both the “reasonableness” standard and a lodestar analysis, infra. With 

the knowledge that this matter was worth $1,000.00, Plaintiff’s counsel proceeded at his own 

peril as he continued to litigate this matter with the expectation that he would be 

compensated for additional attorney time and costs where the potential maximum damage 

award was $1,000.00. 

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should exercise an across the board reduction of 

Plaintiff’s requested attorney fees by a significant percentage. 

II. The Lodestar Formula Does Not Justify Plaintiff’s Fee Request And 

Section 1692k Does Not Mandate A Fee Award In The Lodestar Amount 

A party seeking an award of attorney’s fees has the burden to prove its request for 

fees is reasonable. “[T]he plaintiff has the burden of substantiating the hours expended with 

sufficient clarity to enable the court to determine whether the claimed hours were in fact 

reasonable.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983). The party seeking fees must 

also submit evidence supporting the hours worked and the rates claimed. See MeheneyEgan v. Medoza, 130 F.Supp.2d 884 (2001) quoting Hensley 461 U.S. at 433. Hours are not 

reasonably expended if they are excessive, redundant or otherwise unnecessary. Ibid. As is 

the case here, a court has found that fees were not recoverable where "many time entries of 

debtor's attorneys were for discovery necessary for a company's challenge to debtor's actual 

damages claim, a claim as to which debtor and her attorneys were, and should have 

expected to have been, largely unsuccessful. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, §§ 807(4, 5, 

7, 10), 808, 813(a)(3), 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1692e(4, 5, 7, 10),1692f, 1692k(a)(3)." Miller v. 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.996 Filed 06/20/09 Page 5 of 18
 6 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

Midpoint Resolution Group, LLC 608 F.Supp.2d 389 (W.D.N.Y., 2009).3 See also Lee v. 

Thomas & Thomas, 109 F.3d at 305) (stating FDCPA only authorizes a reasonable fee).

Significantly, partial or limited success may require the court to depart from the 

lodestar analysis. The 4th Circuit has noted that: 

If the concept of discretion is to have any meaning at all, it must encompass the 

ability to depart from the lodestar in appropriate circumstances. Hensley itself 

recognized that, in certain circumstances, an award in the lodestar amount may 

be excessive. When “a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success”, 

the district court, in calculating an appropriate fee award, “may simply reduce 

the award for the limited success.” Carroll v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 53 F.3d 

626, 629 (4th Cir. 1995), quoting Hensley, at 436-37. [emphasis added]. 

Here, Plaintiff’s counsel achieved partial or limited success. Plaintiff’s Complaint 

contains several causes of action and Plaintiff’s cousnel continuously alleged in virtually 

every pleading that Defednants contacted Plaintiff multiple times. Yet Plaintiff testified at his 

deposition that the only telephonic contact with Defendants was one (1), brief call with 

Defendant on his personal cell phone around noon while standing in the parking lot of his 

office. Plaintiff did not know the exact date but guessed it was sometime in May 2008. 

(Exhibit 9 - Plaintiff’s Deposition pp. 21-25.). 

Based on Plaintiff’s limited success, this Court is not required to follow the lodestar 

approach and may reduce Plaitniff’s amount accordingly. Defendants vigorously encourage 

he Court to do so. 

III. If Utilized, The Lodestar Method Still Compels A Downward Adjustment Of 

Plaintiff’s Fee Request 

Determination of an appropriate attorney fee involves consideration of factors first 

enumerated by the court in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 

 

3 Plaintiff’s counsel is also bound by Rule 1.5 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct which states that “A 

fee is clearly excessive when, after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a 

definite and firm conviction that the fee is in excess of a reasonable fee.” Mich. R. Prof’l Conduct (MRPC) 1.5.

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.997 Filed 06/20/09 Page 6 of 18
 7 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

(5th Cir. 1974).4 The United States Supreme Court, in Hensley, 461 U.S. at 436, 

acknowledged that the Johnson factors are relevant to evaluating claims for attorney's fees, 

noting that the most critical factor is the degree of success obtained. Therefore the district 

court has the discretion to make downward adjustments to the lodestar figure based on the 

degree of success obtained by a plaintiff.

Application of the Johnson Factors. 

A. The Time and Labor Required. 

Factor (1), the time and labor required (to litigate the suit), weighs in favor of reducing 

the number of hours. Based on the relevant criteria, Plaintiff is entitled to be reasonably 

compensated and no more. Defendants submit that Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for 

drafting the Complaint and other relevant work up to January 27, 2009, the date Defendants 

informed Plaintiff’s counsel that his case was worth no more than $1,000.00 (See Exhibit 5). 

Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that a reasonable fee herein for his claims is over $56,256.00. 

As argued above, Plaintiff’s counsel should not be awarded a large sum for unnecessarily 

complicating and prolonging the litigation where he had knowledge that Plaintiff’s damages 

were fixed. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s fee request should be drastically reduced.

B. The Novelty and Difficulty of the Issues. 

In this case, there is nothing novel or difficult about drafting Plaintiff’s Complaint for an 

FDCPA violation. Plaintiff’s concomitant state law claims are redundant and arise out of the 

same factual situation. Moreover, Plaintiff accepted Defendants’ Offer of Judgment which 

 

4

Counsel is further bound by the strictures of Rule 1.5 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule 

articulates eight factors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee: (1) the time and labor 

required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal services 

properly; (2) the likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will 

preclude other employment by the lawyer; (3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal 

services; (4) the amount involved and the results obtained; (5) the time limitations imposed by the client or by 

the circumstances; (6) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; (7) the experience, 

reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and (8) whether the fee is fixed or 

contingent. 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.998 Filed 06/20/09 Page 7 of 18
 8 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

extinguished all other counts in his Complaint. In other words, Plaintiff never intended to 

pursue his alternate claims.

C. The Skill Required to Perform the Legal Services Properly. 

An attorney does not need to be very skilled to draft an FDCPA Complaint or litigate 

applicable motions or conduct legal research associated with same. 

D. The Preclusion of Other Employment by the Attorney. 

This provision is not applicable to Plaintiff’s counsel.

 E. The Customary Fee. 

 

Defendants aver that $200 per hour is the highest appropriate fee in this case. Plaintiff 

requests $300 per hour as his billing rate. This hourly rate is inappropriate because that rate 

does not reflect the prevailing market rates within the relevant community and is inflated. 

Further, Plaintiff’s evidence is not satisfactory to establish his requested rates. In support of 

his $300 per hour rate, Plaintiff offers his CV, a Lawyers Weekly article titled “The Economics 

of Law Practice in Michigan” and three affidavits from fellow attorneys. (See Exhibits 6,7 and 

11 - 13 of Pl.’s Fee Application, Doc. 65). Though Mr. Anderson’s CV states he has been 

practicing in Michigan since 1992, he declared at a hearing before this Court that he has only 

been practicing in the area of FDCPA litigation for two years. (See Hr’g. Tr., p. 24, Exhibit 6). 

The affidavits proffered do not support a $300 fee for Plaintiff’s counsel. First, the 

affidavit of Dani Liblang declares that this attorney has filed over 15,000 cases. (See Exhibit 

11, Pl.’s Fee Application). Dani Liblang has vastly superior experience than Mr. Anderson 

and may be entitled to such a rate. Second, Christopher Ambrose’s affidavit states the he is 

a personal injury lawyer, not a consumer lawyer. (See Exhibit 12, Pl.’s Fee Application). 

Third, the affidavit of James Shaw reveals that he has more experience in consumer rights 

and charges less - $250.00 per hour. (See Exhibit 13, ¶ 3 and 12, Pl.’s Fee Application). 

 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.999 Filed 06/20/09 Page 8 of 18
 9 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

 According to the Lawyers Weekly survey submitted by Plaintiff, 54 percent of 

associates with seven plus years of experience billed at a rate of $200 - $224 per hour. (See 

Exhibit 7, p. 11, Pl.’s Fee Application). The median billing rate for attorneys with 15 – 19 

years experience is $200 per hour. Id. at 12. Further, the median billing rate in the primary 

filed of bankruptcy/debtor law is $198 per hour. Id. at 13. Mr. Anderson is an attorney with 

over 10 years experience, but less than two years experience in this area. Therefore, the 

Court should hold that his rate should fall in the median at $200 per hour. 

 Plaintiff’s billing rate for paralegals is also unreasonable. Plaintiff is seeking an award 

of $125 per hour for his paralegals. In support of this request, Mr. Anderson attaches a 1 

page breakdown of attorney and paralegal fees charged by Michigan’s larger firms. (See 

Exhibit 8, Pl.’s Fee Application). The Court should not consider this document as large firms 

can command such higher rates and the document is unsupported by any evidence. 

However, the Lawyers Weekly survey concludes that 50 percent legal assistants with over 

seven years experience billed at a rate of $71 - $80 per hour. (See Exhibit 7, p. 12, Pl.’s Fee 

Application). This Court should reduce Plaintiff’s counsel’s requested fee amount for both 

himself and his paralegals. Based on the evidence, an award of $200 per hour for attorney 

time and $75 per hour for paralegals is appropriate. 

F. Whether the Fee Is Fixed or Contingent. 

Courts no longer can use this factor. Walker v. U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 

99 F.3d 761, 772 (5th Cir. 1996). 

G. The Time Limitations Imposed by the Client or Circumstances. 

This provision is not applicable to Plaintiff’s counsel. 

 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1000 Filed 06/20/09 Page 9 of 18
 10 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

H. The Amount Involved and Results Obtained. 

Plaintiff had knowledge that this matter was worth $1,000.00 yet Plaintiff’s counsel 

proceeded unreasonably with these proceedings. Plaintiff has no justification for the 

requested award. 

I. The Experience, Reputation and Ability of the Attorneys.

See paragraph E above. 

J. The Undesirability of the Case. 

The Complaint asserted against Defendants is based on an alleged violation of the 

FDCPA, which not only provides for the award of actual damages, but also for statutory 

damages for technical violations and the payment of attorney fees. Accordingly, it is not an 

undesirable case. Further, the overabundance of cases filed under the FDCPA demonstrates 

that this is not the type of case that attorneys are unwilling to take. 

K. The Nature and Length of the Professional Relationship with the Client. 

This provision is not applicable to Plaintiff’s counsel. 

L. The Award in Similar Cases. 

In Carroll v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 53 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 1995), the Court rejected a fee 

application in excess of $10,000 and instead awarded $500 in attorney fees, even though 

Plaintiff’s counsel prevailed on appeal. See also Leyse v. Corporate Collection Services, Inc., 

2008 WL 731976 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2008) (Court awarded statutory damages in the amount 

of $1,000, but held 40% reduction in attorney fees appropriate). 

IV. Defendants Proposed Resolution 

From the outset, the only issue in this case was Mr. Anderson’s and Mr. Parker’s 

attorney fees. Based on the authorities cited herein, Defendants urge this Honorable Court to 

award $4,000.00 in attorney fees to Mr. Anderson & Mr. Parker. Defendants also urge the 

Court to award costs of $350.00 relative to the filing fee. 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1001 Filed 06/20/09 Page 10 of 18
 11 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

V. Additional Reasons For Reducing Plaintiff’s Attorney Fee Award - Specific 

Hour Reductions 

As stated previously, in making a determination of whether to reduce a fee award 

“[t}he district court may attempt to identify specific hours that should be eliminated, or it may 

simply reduce the award to account for the limited success.” Hensley, 461 US at 436-37. 

Without waiving its right to request an overall reduction of the fee award to account for the 

Plaintiff’s limited success, Defendants aver that many of Plainitff’s billed hours should be 

eliminated or reduced. (See Exhibit 4, Pl.’s Fee Application). 

Plaintiff’s counsel has stated in his sworn affidavit that he expended 187.49 hours on 

this matter while at the same time his paralegals expended an additional 47 hours. (Exhibit 

1, Pl.s Fee Application). The 234.49 total hours spent by Plaintiff on this litigation are simply 

not compensable in light of the standards articulated herein. Defendants submits the 

following specific hours should be eliminated or reduced from the affidavit of Plaintiff’s 

counsel. In the alternative to the specific hour reductions submitted below, Defendants 

requests that the court render an overall reduction of the fee award to account for the 

plaintiff’s severely limited success. 

No Fees after Acceptance of Offer of Judgment 

Plaintiff is not entitled to fees incurred after service of Defendants’ Offer of Judgment. 

Defendants served the Offer of Judgment on May 26, 2009 and Plaintiffs accepted the Offer 

of Judgment on May 28, 2009. (See Doc. 63). The terms of Defendants’ Offer of Judgment 

stated, “Judgment shall be entered against Defendants in the amount of 1,001.00, plus all 

costs and reasonable attorney fees that have accrued as of the date of service of this Offer of 

Judgment.” Accordingly, Plaintiff's counsel cannot claim any fees incurred after May 26, 

2009. See Young v. Diversified Consultants, Inc. 554 F.Supp.2d 954, 957 (D. Minn. 2008); 

See also Lee v. Thomas & Thomas, 109 F.3d 302 (6th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing 

records that must be eliminated include the following:

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1002 Filed 06/20/09 Page 11 of 18
 12 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

Date Name Notes Duration 

05/27/09 RCA Email to Defendant accepting its Offer of 

judgment 

0:10 

06/08/09 RCA Final pre-trial conference – receive dates to file 

fee application 

1:50 

06/08/09 RCA Travel time to Court for final pre-trial conference 2:20 

06/10/08 RCA Tel conference with Def Atty re settlement prior 

to prepare fee application 

0:20 

06/10/08 RCA Advise client case settled 0:20 

06/13/09 RCA $30.00 – Parking costs in Detroit - $10 x3 

(12/1/08, 3/4/09, 6/8/09) 

$30.00 

06/13/09 RCA Reviewing file, both hard copy and electronic 

and finalizing time entries 

3:40 

06/13/09 RCA Prepare fee application and memorandum of 

law 

4:50 

Total Hours 12.1 

Amount: $3,630.00 

Total 

Expenses 

 Parking $30.00 

Total Amount $3,660.00 

Preparation of Plaintiff’s Complaint 

The time spent preparing Plaintiff’s Complaint is excessive and duplicative. Note the 

inordinate amount of time billed on the Complaint. Plaintiff’s counsel allegedly spent over 7 

hours on preparing the Complaint. Additionally, the Complaints filed by Mr. Anderson are 

“cookie cutter” versions as he files many such FDCPA claims. 

Date Name Notes Duration 

10/03/08 BE Make revisions to complaint; Prepare two (2) 

summons and civil cover; file with court 

0:54 

07/27/08 RCA Attorney drafting documents – Complaint 1:15 

07/28/08 RCA Drafting documents – Complaint 1:50 

08/03/08 RCA Drafting documents – Complaint 0:45 

08/03/08 RCA Consultation on the phone with Robert 0:15 

08/10/08 RCA Attorney draft motion for trustee abandonment 

of FDCPA Claim 

1:12 

08/12/08 RCA Drafting documents revisions to complaint for 

abandonment 

0:15 

09/14/08 RCA Met with Robert to review complaint. 

Revisions noted 

1:10 

09/19/08 RCA Atty drafting complaint-revising per client – 

meeting 

0:40 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1003 Filed 06/20/09 Page 12 of 18
 13 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

09/26/08 RCA Attorney meet with client and revise complaint 1:20 

 Total Hours 7.76 

Total Amount $2,233.50 

Plaintiff should not be awarded travel time or travel costs 

An award of attorney fees is by definition compensation for legal work performed by an 

attorney and non legal work must command a lesser rate. See, e.g., Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 

U.S. 274, 288 n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989). Further, an attorneys' traveling 

expenses incurred in attending depositions and expenses incurred in making investigations 

are not recoverable as costs. Wahl v. Carrier Mfg. Co., Inc., 511 F.2d 209, 217 (7th Cir. 

1975). Therefore, the Court should reduce the following Plaintiff’s travel time and deduct all 

travel expenses, including mileage. 

Date Name Notes Duration 

12/01/08 RCA Travel to and from court for scheduling 

conference 

2:10 

12/01/08 RCA Mileage from RCA office in Davison to Court 

Scheduling conference 

$77.00 

02/04/09 RCA Travel to ADR Conference – round trip Parker 1:00 

02/13/09 RCA ADS Status Conference in Detroit 3:00 PM Brian 

Parker Mileage 

$17.60 

03/04/09 RCA Travel round trip to ADR Conference 2:20 

03/04/09 RCA Hearing on our Motion for Protective Order – 

Judge Lawson – DETROIT 

$77.00 

03/04/09 RCA Hearing on our Motion for Protective Order – 

Judge Lawson – DETROIT 

$17.50 

03/17/09 RCA Travel time round trip to Sue Johnson Deposition 2:40 

03/17/09 RCA Deposition of Defendant’s Designated Rep in 

Bingham Farms 

$50.49 

03/17/09 RCA Travel to Defense counsel office for 30b6 

deposition Bingham Farms 

$53.90 

04/16/09 RCA Travel time to and from Neidle’s office for 

depositions 

2:40 

05/18/09 RCA Travel time round trip to Court for hearing on 

motions 

2:20 

05/18/09 RCA Travel to Court Detroit – Motion to Limit 

Damages, Motion to deem RTA aK

$77.00 

06/08/09 RCA Travel time to Court for final pre-trial conference 2:20 

06/08/09 RCA Travel to Court Detroit-Final Pre-trial conference $77.00 

Total Hours 14.5 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1004 Filed 06/20/09 Page 13 of 18
 14 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

Amount $4,350.00 

Total 

Expenses 

 $447.49 

Total 

Amount 

 $4,797.49 

Email Billing must be eliminated

Plaintiff’s counsel billed for a significant amount of routine emails. Further, it is 

confusing whether Plaintiff’s counsel bills in .10 or .15 increments. However, many of the 

emails are billed in .15 increments. Here, the emails are secretarial in nature and billing 15 

minutes per email is highly unreasonable because, for example, four emails billed at 15 

minutes piece equates to charging $300.00. 

According to Plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records, there were a total of 94 emails sent: 

 11 emails sent by Paralegal “BE” 

 23 emails sent by Paralegal “DMG” 

 60 emails sent by Rex C. Anderson. 

Defendants request that all email entries be eliminated. The following billing entries 

that were also secretarial in nature should be eliminated: 

Date Name Notes Duration 

01/14/09 BE Conference with Maureen regarding depositions 

and discovery 

0:30 

01/22/09 BE Send RCA email attaching all deposition notices 

and 

Correspondence 

0:30 

01/21/09 DMG Telephone call to Benchmark Reporting Agency 

regarding cancellation of our deposition of 

defendant 

0:15 

01/22/09 DMG Email to client confirming receipt of files 0:15 

Total hours .9 

Total 

Amount 

$1,125 

 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1005 Filed 06/20/09 Page 14 of 18
 15 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

Communications with co-counsel Brian Parker

In this case, the necessity of obtaining co-counsel is unwarranted and lacking 

explanation by Plainitff’s counsel. Accrordingly, all time entries with regard to Brian Parker 

should be omitted, including the following: 

Date ame otes Duration 

02/12/09 RCA Tel call to Brian Parker – requesting that he act as 

co-counsel and appear at the ADR conference 

0:30 

02/12/09 RCA Email to lemonlaw@ameritech.net requesting he 

file appearance as co-counsel 

0:15 

02/12/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding bankruptcy 

exemptions 

0:15 

02/12/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding Interim Status 

Conference/ADR Conference and summary of 

caK

0:45 

02/16/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker requesting update Levander 

vs IC (ADR Conference scheduled for 02/13/K) 

0:15 

02/16/09 RCA Email from Brian Parker regarding update on 

status conference 

0:15 

02/16/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding P’s Motion for 

Protective order 

0:15 

03/03/09 RCA E-mail from and in response to Brian Parker 

advising that Rex will cover upcoming hearing 

0:40 

03/04/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding updating Parker 

on P’s Motion to Compel the 30(b)(6) Deposition 

0:30 

03/16/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding his hourly rate 0:20 

03/16/09 RCA Email from Brian Parker – his hourly rate 0:15 

04/29/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding deposition 

transcripts of Karen Jonas and Sue Johnson 

0:15 

04/29/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding case status 0:45 

05/06/09 RCA Telephone conf with Brian Parker – re 6

th circuit 

standard jury instructions 

0:15 

05/06/09 RCA Telephone conf with Brian Parker re Plaintiff’s 

counsel being called as witness 

0:20 

05/06/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding trial date of 

06/23/09 at 8:30 AM 

0:15 

05/15/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker updating/summarizing him 

on depositions 

1:15 

05/17/09 RCA Email to Brian Parker regarding status as cocounsel 0:15 

Total Hours 4.95 

Total 

Amount 

 $1,485 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1006 Filed 06/20/09 Page 15 of 18
 16 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

 Miscellaneous billing items

 The following entries are unrelated to legal work or redundant: 

01/20/09 DMG E-mail to client regarding difficulty in converting 

discovery in MS Word 

0:15 

01/21/09 DMG Telephone call to Benchmark Reporting Agency 

regarding cancellation of our deposition of 

defendant 

0:15 

01/22/09 DMG Email to client confirming receipt of files 0:15 

03/11/09 RCA Research case law and prepare response to 

defendants Motion to Limit Damages 

6:45 

03/15/09 RCA Research case law and prepare response to 

defendant’s Motion to Limit Damages 

6:45 

03/22/09 RCA Prepare time entries for all e-mails on 

Levander case to be incorporated into final 

fee application 

1:15 

03/24/09 RCA Email to law clerk regarding case status and 

directives pull 1927 cases 

0:15 

04/21/09 RCA Download and review of Court ECF 

procedures 

0:40 

05/01/09 RCA Reviewing federal court docket 0:42 

05/08/09 RCA Conference with RA re research on Attyclient privelege 0:40 

Total Hours 15.87 

Total Amount $4,682.25 

Plaintiff’s Bankruptcy

Counsel and his staff have also attached time entries that do not relate to the instant 

litigation. Paralegal Bobbie Elvin (“BE”) records three entries on August 11, 2008, and 

September 5, 2008 which relate to the bankruptcy. An unknown staff member with the initials 

DMG also recorded entries related to the bankruptcy. Similarly, Mr. Anderson’s time keeping 

records contain the follwong entries that relate to the bankruptcy and should be eliminated: 

Date Name Notes Duration 

08/11/08 BE Save COS from Certificate of Service to file; 

file Motion, Notice and COS with Court 

0:30 

08/11/08 BE Make revisions to Motion per RCA changes; 

upload motion and notice for matrix mailing to 

COS 

0:30 

09/05/08 BE Draft Certificate of No Response and proposed 0:30 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1007 Filed 06/20/09 Page 16 of 18
 17 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

order; file with court; submit for entry 

08/21/08 DMG Mailed signed reaffirmation to GMAC 0:15 

10/08/08 DMG Email to clients regarding Order of Discharge 0:15 

10/08/08 DMG Email to clients regarding post-discharge 

paperwork 

0:15 

12/11/08 DMG Enter all deadlines in Amicus 0:45 

12/12/08 DMG Email to clients regarding Consumer Letter 0:15 

07/23/08 RCA Prepare intake forms for meeting with clients. 

Review bankruptcy file 

0:45 

07/23/08 RCA Meeting with Rob and Shiloh for a overview 

meeting 

1:45 

07/27/08 RCA Attorney drafting documents – Complaint 1:15 

07/28/08 RCA Drafting documents – Complaint 1:50 

08/03/08 RCA Drafting documents – Complaint 0:45 

08/03/08 RCA Consultation on the phone with Robert 0:15 

08/10/08 RCA Attorney draft motion for trustee abandonment 

of FDCPA Claim 

1:12 

08/12/08 RCA Drafting documents revisions to complaint for 

abandonment 

0:15 

04/21/09 RCA Research and review cases on Bankruptcy 

exemptions 

0:40 

Total Hours 8.77 

Total 

Amount 

$2,289.75 

Apart from being patently unreasonable, the time entries submitted by Plaintiff contain 

many inaccuracies. Defendants do not concede that Plaintiff is entitled to anything more than 

a deminimus attorney fee award with regard to this matter. Defendants also do not concede 

the accuracy of the time keeping records submitted and further, defendants do not concede 

the reasonableness of the time spent or the method(s) used to calculate the time (quarter 

hour increments) . 

Counsel’s time entries demonstrate that the total time expended by he and his office 

(and Attorney Brian Parker) is not only unreasonable but many of the entries suggest that 

they are inflated and relate to time spent well in advance of the filing of this litigation. For 

example, most of the time reflected is billed in quarter hour increments rather than in tenths 

of an hour as is customary. The total bill when calculated in quarter hours increments at 

$300.00 per hour for a case worth $1000.00 is, on its face unreasonable. Plainitff’s counsel 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1008 Filed 06/20/09 Page 17 of 18
 18 

LAW OFFICES 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, P.C. 

30150 TELEGRAPH ROAD STE. 410 • BINGHAM FARMS , MICHIGAN 48025 • 248-723-9520

knew early on in this case that Plaintff’s damages were limited to $1,000.00, yet continued to 

protract this litigation. For Plaintiff to demand over $56,000.00 in legal fees and expenses is 

unconscionable. 

CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Plaintiff’s Fee Application 

be denied. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: June 20, 2009 /s/ Daniel J. Ammon 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, PC 

30150 Telegraph Road, Suite 410 

Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

Phone: (248) 723-9511 

Email: dammon@dobbsneidle.com 

 MI Bar Number P50923 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 20, 2009, I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing 

document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of 

such filing to the following: 

Rex C. Anderson, Esq. 

Brian Parker, Esq. 

and I hereby certify that I have mailed by United States Postal Service the documents to the 

following non ECF participants: N/A

Dated: June 20, 2009 /s/ Daniel J. Ammon 

DOBBS & NEIDLE, PC 

30150 Telegraph Road, Suite 410 

Bingham Farms, MI 48025 

Phone: (248) 723-9511 

Email: dammon@dobbsneidle.com 

 MI Bar Number P50923 

 Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 2:08-cv-14241-DML-VMM ECF No. 69, PageID.1009 Filed 06/20/09 Page 18 of 18