Zoerb v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3 et al
Filing
51
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 47 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Court grants Plaintiff $125,000 in attorney's fees and $7500 in costs. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 4/5/2017. (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAWN ZOERB, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
12
13
Case No. 14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AND COSTS
Plaintiff,
v.
14
15
18
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, a
Delaware statutory trust(s); and LAW
OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND
FELIX, A.P.C.,
19
Defendants.
16
17
20
21
22
23
Plaintiffs’ counsel files a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs requesting
24
$125,000 in attorneys’ fees and $7,500 reimbursement for costs. (ECF No. 47.)
25
Defendants do not oppose. The Court held a hearing on the issue on April 3, 2017.
26
After reviewing the time sheets and considering the arguments of counsel both
27
oral and written, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ request is reasonable and
28
GRANTS the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
–1–
14cv468
1
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
2
A. Underlying Case
3
On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff Dawn Zoerb filed a civil class action alleging that
4
Defendants, as assignees of student loan debts, failed to properly identify the original
5
creditor in various state court collections actions. (ECF No. 1.) The case was
6
eventually consolidated with ten other cases making the same allegations against
7
Defendants. (ECF No. 22.)
8
The Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act by
9
filing complaints in state court collections lawsuits falsely claiming that each Plaintiff
10
had entered into a written loan contract with Defendants, when the Plaintiff in fact
11
had never dealt with Defendants and had no idea who they were. (ECF No. 1.)
12
Defendants, however, claim that the FDCPA is inapplicable and that because
13
Plaintiffs received earlier notice of the Defendant Trusts taking over their loan
14
obligations, Plaintiffs could not have been misled in the state court actions. (Joint
15
Mot., ECF No. 43, ¶ IIB.)
16
The parties met with a private mediator, the Hon. Herbert B. Hoffman (Ret.)
17
on multiple occasions. All aspects of the settlement were extensively negotiated
18
through
19
correspondence, with multiple drafts of the Settlement Agreement being prepared
20
before it was presented for the Court’s approval. (Joint Mot. ¶ 2(C).)
numerous
meetings,
telephone
conferences
and
exchanges
of
21
B. Settlement and Attorneys’ Fees
22
Plaintiffs submit declarations detailing that hourly attorneys’ fees expended on
23
this case to date total $159,971, more than the $125,000 requested, and that costs
24
advanced equal $8,441.67, again more than the $7,500 requested. (ECF No. 47.)
25
II.
ANALYSIS
26
The FDCPA provides for mandatory attorney fees to be awarded to the
27
successful consumer. Tolentino v. Friedman, 46 F.3d 645, 651 (7th Cir. 1995); 15
28
U.S.C. § 1692k(a). Courts have an obligation to ensure that the attorneys’ fees award,
–2–
14cv468
1
like the settlement, is reasonable. In re Bluetooth Headsets Prods. Liab. Litig., 654
2
F.3d 935, 941 (9th Cir. 2011).
3
However, “[u]nlike most private tort litigants [a plaintiff who brings an
4
FDCPA action] seeks to vindicate important . . . rights that cannot be valued solely
5
in monetary terms.” Tolentino, 46 F.3d at 652 (quoting City of Riverside v. Rivera,
6
477 U.S. 561, 574 (1986)). “The most useful starting point for determining the
7
amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the
8
litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Tolentino, 46 F.3d at 652 (quoting
9
Hensley v. Eckenhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). The Court should also consider the
10
novelty and difficulty of the litigated issues; preclusion of employment by the
11
attorney due to acceptance of the case; results obtained; experience, reputation and
12
ability of the plaintiffs’ attorney; “undesirability” of the case and awards in similar
13
cases. Id.
14
Plaintiffs’ counsel submits records detailing the number of hours worked on
15
this case. The Court finds the number of hours as well as the hourly rate reasonable
16
given the experience level of the attorneys involved. Thus, had plaintiffs’ counsel
17
been working for a client who paid a reasonably hourly wage, counsel would be
18
entitled to $159,971. Counsel is requesting less than this amount or $125,000. The
19
Court finds this is reasonable. Although the litigated issues were not novel or
20
difficult, they did require much negotiation by the attorneys and the results obtained
21
were excellent given plaintiffs’ primary damage was decreased credit scores due to
22
the alleged misrepresentations.
23
Defendant does not object to Plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement of costs in
24
the amount of $7,500.00. Plaintiffs’ counsel detail costs expended that exceed this
25
amount. Therefore, the Court finds the requested amount of $7,500 is reasonable and
26
grants Plaintiffs’ request for costs.
27
III.
28
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for
–3–
14cv468
1
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. (ECF No. 47.) The Court grants Plaintiff $125,000 in
2
attorneys’ fees and $7500 in costs.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
DATED: April 5, 2017
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–4–
14cv468
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?