Munch v. Credit Protection Association, LP et al

Filing 58

ORDER Adopting in Part 55 Report and Recommendations; Granting in Part Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Attorney Fees. The Court adopts the entirety of the Report and Recommendations with the exception of the determination of fees for attorney-client communications, and reduces that portion of the fees to the equivalent of 8.8 hours at $350 per hour. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 9/24/2014. (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WILLIAM MUNCH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No.: 8:13-CV-1179-T-17TBM

CREDIT PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, LP
and COMCAST OF TALLAHASSEE, LLC,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R)
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Jenkins issued on August 21, 2014.

(Doc. # 55).

Magistrate Judge Jenkins recommended the Court accept, reduce, and reject certain
portions of Plaintiffs attorney’s fees, based on Plaintiffs First Motion for Attorney’s Fees,
(Doc. # 28), filed December 20, 2013, and Defendant’s, CREDIT PROTECTION
ASSOCIATION, LP, Response in Opposition, (Doc. # 33), filed January 15, 2014.
Defendant objected to the R&R on September 4, 2014, (Doc. # 56), and Plaintiff
responded to Defendant’s objections on September 15, 2014.

(Doc. # 57). For the

reasons stated below, the Court ADOPTS in PART the R&R.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party makes a timely and specific objection to a finding of fact in the report
and recommendation, the district court should make a de novo review of the record with
respect to that factual issue. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); U.S. v. Raddatz. 447 U.S. 667 (1980);
Jeffrey S. v. State Board of Education of State of Georgia. 896 F.2d 507 (11th Cir. 1990).

Case No.: 8:13-CV-1179-T-17TBM
Defendant lodged three objections to the R&R, which include: 1) the applicable
law shows that the Court need not perform an hour-by-hour and line-by-line examination
when only a modest fee award is appropriate, and the amount should have been reduced
accordingly; 2) the history of settlement shows that Plaintiffs counsel should not be
awarded for his unreasonable positions with respect to settling his attorney fees and
costs; and 3) the time awarded for emails is unreasonable and clearly erroneous. (Doc.
# 56). The Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s objections, and noted the objections were
unsupported by case law, contrary to the evidence presented, or fell within the broad
discretion of the Court for determination. (Doc. # 57).
The Court has reviewed the report and recommendation and made a de novo
review of the record. Upon due consideration, the Court concurs with the report and
recommendation with respect to all determinations with the exception of the number of
hours awarded for emails. While counsel for Plaintiff argues emails “are the quickest,
cheapest, and least time-consuming method of communication,” the claimed number of
emails for a straight forward and simple case—such as the case presented here—is
unreasonable. (Doc. # 57). While Magistrate Judge Jenkins reduced the total number of
billed hours for attorney-client communication from 27.8 hours to 20 hours, Magistrate
Judge Jenkins further determined reasonable the 2.3 hours for communications with
opposing counsel and 6.5 hours for attorney work related to discovery, an aggregate of
8.8 hours of total work related to litigation, save communications and the issue of
attorney’s fees. (Doc. # 55). Plaintiffs counsel did not object to these determinations of
hours or reasonability. (Doc. # 57).

Case No.: 8:13-CV-1179-T-17TBM
The Court finds a 1:1 ratio of attorney-client related communication to litigation
work appropriate, resulting in a reduction from the original 27.8 hours (and the
recommended 20 hours) to 8.8 total hours. For instance, from March 1, 2013, through
May 15, 2013, the attorney solely communicated through email and billed approximately
5 hours for emails without any litigation-related work. (Doc. # 28-1). Similarly, from
September 5,2013, through October 21,2013, the attorney solely communicated through
email and billed approximately 6.5 hours for emails after spending 0.4 hours reviewing
settlement proposals. The 1:1 ratio reduction for attorney-client communication would
reduce otherwise excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours, and result in an
aggregate of 12.9 hours of email communication—8.8 hours for attorney-client emails;
1.8 hours for emails with the paralegal; and 2.3 hours for emails with opposing counsel.
The remainder of Defendant’s arguments are unpersuasive and fall within the
discretion of the Court—namely, to conduct a line-by-line determination of attorney’s fees
rather than award a flat fee. After conducting a de novo review of the factual record, the
Court adopts the R&R with the exception of the previously-discussed matter relating to
attorney-client communication. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the report and recommendation (Doc. # 55) be ADOPTED in
PART and INCORPORATED by REFERENCE; the objections of the Defendant with
respect to the determination of attorney-client communications are SUSTAINED and the
remainder are OVERRULED; and the Court awards the following fees and costs:
Name
Vollrath
Paralegal

Hours
25.40
11.45

TOTAL

36.25

Hourly Rate
$350.00
$95.00

Fees
$8,890.00
$1,087.75
$9,977.75

Case No.: 8:13-CV-1179-T-17TBM
In addition to the award for costs of $400.00 for filing the case, Plaintiff is awarded
$10,377.75 in fees and costs.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in Tampa, Florida, this 24th day of
September, 2014.

All parties and counsel of record
Assigned Magistrate Judge