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