Johnson v. Velocity Investments, LLC et al

Filing 55

OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III's Final Report and Recommendation 53 . It is further ordered that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 as follows: Damages $3,001.00; Costs $570.75; Attorney Fees $16,185.00, for a total of $19,756.65. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 5/14/18. (ddm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SHERI JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:17-cv-1161-WSD

VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLD;
NORTHLAND GROUP, INC.; and
GLOBAL CREDIT COLLECTION
CORP.,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III’s
Final Report and Recommendation [53] (“Final R&R”). The Final R&R
recommends that the Court grant in part and deny in part Plaintiff Sheri Johnson’s
Petition for Fees and Costs [45] and that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff
and against Defendants pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 68.
I.

BACKGROUND
This is a consumer protection case arising under the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. Johnson filed this lawsuit on
March 31, 2017, alleging that Defendants violated the FDCPA by attempting to
collect on a consumer debt that Johnson and Velocity had settled ([1]) and

amended her complaint to allege violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices
Act (“GFBPA”) and to add a state law claim for breach of the settlement
agreement and for specific performance ([23]). On November 20, 2017, Johnson
accepted an offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68,
pursuant to which (1) Johnson would take a judgment against Defendants in the
amount of $3,001 and (2) the judgment would include all reasonable attorney fees
and costs associated with prosecution of this lawsuit, provided that if they could
not agree on the amount of fees and costs, the Court would determine the amount.
([43], [43.1]).
On November 20, 2017, Johnson also filed the instant motion for attorney
fees and costs, seeking a total of $570.65 in actual costs and $30,582.50 in attorney
fees. ([45]). Defendants object to the reasonablness of the time Plaintiff’s counsel
spent prosecuting this case and argue that Plaintiff was only partially successful on
her claims.
On February 26, 2018, the Magistrate Judge heard oral argument on
Plaintiff’s motion. On March 12, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued his Final R&R
[53]. The Magistrate Judge recommended that judgment be entered in favor of
Plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 in the amount of $19,756.65, representing
damages of $3,001.00, a reduced fee award of $16,185.00 (49.8 hours worked at a

billable rate of $325.00), and costs of $570.65. Neither party filed objections to
the Final R&R. ([53] at 18-19).
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
A.

Review of a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams
v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).
Where, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the Court conducts a plain error
review of the record. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th
Cir. 1983).
B.

Applicable Standard

The FDCPA authorizes the Court to award reasonable attorney fees and
costs to a plaintiff who brings a “successful action” to enforce her rights under the
FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). The Eleventh Circuit has held that in
determining the amount of fees to be awarded, the Court should multiply the
number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate to calculate the
“lodestar.” Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir. 1984); see also
Stewart v. Regent Asset Mgmt. Sols., No. 1:10-CV-2552-CC-JFK, 2011 WL

1766018, at *8 (N.D. Ga. May 4, 2011) (applying lodestar approach to determine
award of fees under FDCPA). The party seeking attorney fees may establish a
reasonable hourly rate by presenting evidence of the prevailing market rate in the
community for similar legal services by comparable lawyers. Stewart, 2011 WL
1766018, at *8. The amount of time that is compensable is the number of hours
reasonably expended on the action.
III.

DISCUSSION
After thoroughly reviewing the parties’ briefs, the record in the case, and

considering the argument of counsel during the February 2018 hearing, the
Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiff’s counsel’s claim for 109.1 hours should
be reduced to 49.8 hours, which equals a reduction in the requested fee from
$35,457.50 to $16,185.00. The Magistrate Judge meticulously considered the time
claimed, explained how time claimed for certain tasks was excessive, and
recommended a reduction for those tasks. The Court finds no plain error in these
findings or recommendation. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge John K. Larkins III’s

Final Report and Recommendation [53] is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 as follows:
Damages
Costs
Attorney Fees
TOTAL

$3,001.00
$570.75
$16,185.00
$19,756.65

SO ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2018.