Garza et al v. Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates, P.C.

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 12/27/2016. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Dh'ision

CIIIUSTOPHER

GARZA et aI.,

.1

T
T'

,

*

Plaiutiffs,

*

v.

Case No.: G.JII-I5-I572

*
MITCIIELL RUBENSTEIN
ASSOCIATES,I'.C .•

8<

*
Defendant.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM

"Plaintiffs")

Motion I(Jr Attorneys'

Loe. R. IOS.6 (D. Md. 2(16).

Attorneys'

Garza and George Easton Jr:s

& Associates.

Practice Act ("FDCI'A"),

necessary.

*

Fees. ECF No. 17. arising out of their successful

class action lawsuit against Mitehcll Rubenstein
of the Fair Debt Collection

*

*

OPINION

Presently pending bel()re the Court is Christopher
(together.

*

*

ISlJ.S.C.

P.e. C'Defendant")
~ 1692

cl SCIf.

No hearing is

Fees is granted.

I.

For the f()llowing reasons, Plaintiffs'

t(Jr violations

Motion for

BACKGROUND
This case began as a class action lawsuit against Defendant

the Fair Debt Collection
how consumers

~ I692g(a)(4)

by f(tiling to provide proper disclosures

could verify and dispute the legitimacy

April f f. 2016. Plaintiffs
settlement

Practice Act ("FDCPA")

tor violating

of the debts they owed. ECF NO.1. On

tiled a Consent Motion for Settlement.

ECF No. 16. Following

hearing on April 2S, 2016. the Court entered an Order of Final Approval

Action Settlement.

ECF No. 22. The settlement

lor

agreement

incloded,

a

of Class

in relevant part. that

of

Dell:ndant would pay the two named Plaintiffs. Garza and Easton. $1.000.00 each. and that it
\\'ould create a common fund in the amount of $12,425.00 to be distributed on a pro rata basis to
each of the 884 class members. Id at 3.1 In addition. as highlighted in Plaintiffs' Consent Motion
fiJI'Settlement. Defendant agreed to change the language in its debt collection letters going
lorward. to address Plaintiffs' concerns. ECI'
Contemporaneously

o. 16 at'4.

with their Consent Motion fiJI'Settlement. Plaintiffs also moved till'

an award of attorneys' fees and costs. ECF No. 17. In their motion. Plaintill's noted that. pursuant
to the settlement agreement. Delendant would not oppose the lirst $20.000.00 in requested Ices
and expenses. and that Plaintiffs would not seck more than $35.000.00 in Ices and expenses. Id
at 3. Reflecting this agreement. Plaintiffs requested $35.000.00 in attorneys' Ices and expenses.
based on 87.5 hours of work completed by lilliI' attorneys li'om the law linn of Greenwald.
Davidson RadbilPLCC.

("GDR"): 11.7 hours completed by local counsel: and an estimated

$1.234.53 in litigation related costs. ECF No. 17- 1. Defendant submitted a Response to
Plaintilrs

Motion on April 25. 20J6. amended on April 26. 20J6. arguing that the Court should

award Plaintiff only $20.000.00 in Ices and expenses. ECF No. 23. Plaintiffs tiled a Reply in
support of their Motion on May J2.20 I6. reiterating their request lilf $35.000.00 in fees and
expenses. ECI' No. 24. They noted that GDR attorneys had dedicated an additional 32.2 hours on
the case. bringing the toWI compensable hours to 131.4 hours. and submitted a tin'll bill of
expenses totaling $1.166.52. a slight downward departure li'om their previous estimate. lOCI'No.
24 at I: lOCI'No. 24-1 at 14.

I

Pin cites to documents liIcd

011

the Court"s electronic filing system (CM/ECF)

that system.

2

refer to page numbers generated

by

STANDAIW OF REVIEW

II.

While thc paymcnt ofattorncys'
claims is mandatory.

15 U.S.c.

*

fecs and costs to plaintiffs who prcvail on [,DCPA

1692k(a)(3) ... thc statutc makcs clear that calculation

award must bc len to thc district court'" Carroll, .. l/'olpo(T& Ahralllsoll. 53 F.3d

appropriate

626. 62S (4th Cir. 1995). To rccovcr attorncy's
party". a thrcshold

qucstion

fecs and costs. a plaintilrmust

fiJI' which thc Court accords a "gcncrous

Eckrr!lar/. 461 U.S. 424. 433 (19S3). A plaintiff is a '.prcvailing
attorncy's

fccs if the plaintiffsuccccds

'.on any signilicant

be a "prcvailing

formulation".

thc partics'

.'prcvailing

scttlemcnt

agrecmcnt.

party'. cntitlcd to attorney's

:Z:ZSS.2013 WL 38S991. at

*I

/lclIslcy

p,

party'. for the purpose of

issuc in litigation which achievcs

bcnelit thc partics sought in bringing suit'" Jd Plaintiffs hcrc obtaincd

somc ofthc
following

ofthc

which was aflirmcd

paymcnt

by this Court. and is thcrcforc a

fccs. See Nelsoll \', ,1&11M%rs.

(D. Md . .Ian. 30. 2013). This contcntion

IIIC,.Civil No . .IKS 12-

is not disputcd

by thc

partics.
Thc most uscful starting point 1111" cstablishing
.'Iodcstar'"

or ..thc number of hours rcasonably

the proper amount of an award is thc

cxpcnded.

multiplied

by a rcasonablc

hourly

ratc'" Hcmley \., Ecker/wr/. 461 U.S. 424. 433 (19S3): see also RUlli ("reek Coal Sales. Ille. \.,

Caper/oil. 3 I F.3d 169. 174 (4th Cir. 1994). Thc court must adjust thc numbcr of hours to dcletc
duplicativc

or unrclatcd

hours. and thc number of hours must be reasonable

product of"billingjudgment..'
plaintilTprcvails

downward:

but where full rclicfis

on only some ofthc
obtained.

fcc and in cascs of cxccptional

(intcrnal citations

omittcd).

the

Caper/oil. 31 F.3d, at 175 (citing /lellsley. 461 U.S. at 437).

"Whcnthc

compcnsatory

and rcprcscnt

In asscssing

claims. thc numbcr of hours may bc adjusted

the plaintiffs

attorney should rcceivc a fully

success. cvcn an cnhancement..'

thc ovcrall rcasonablencss

,

.'

Jd at 174-75

of the lodestar. thc court may

also consider

the twelve factors set Ic)rth in./o!lllsoll

714. 717-19

(5th Cir.

J

974) ("the Johnson

P.

Georgia Iligllll'llY

Erpress. IlIc .. 488 F.2d

ftletors"). speeilically:

(I) The time and labor required; (2) The novelty and difticulty of the
questions raised: (3) The skill requisite to pericH'll] the legal services
properly: (4) The preclusion of employment by the altorney due to
acceptance of the case: (5) The customary fee: (6) Whether the fee is
lixed or contingent: (7) Time limitations imposed by the client or the
circumstances:
(8) The amount involved and the results obtained: (9)
The experience. reputation. and ability of the attorneys: (10) The
undesirability of the case: (11) The nature and length of the
prolessional relationship between the altorney and the client: and (12)
Altorney's Icc awards in similar eases.
See Cap<'I'lolI. 31 FJd at 175. These ftlctorS. however.
caleulation
I'.

ofhoLIrs reasonably

expended

"usually are subsumed

at a reasonable

II <I.'-I' Capilal. IlIc .. 513 F. App'x 282. 283-84
Furthermore.

hourly rate I. i.e.. the lodestari."

in original).

court is to consider

all twelve Itlctors. but need not robotically

3239117.
III.

at *2 (E.D.N.C.

,,' i In considering

the Johnson/Barber

at

factors. the

list each factor or comment

LLC \'.AlllrolDapis. No. 7:10-CV-17-D.

on

2010 WI.

Aug. 16.2(10).

IHSCllSSION
A. Rcasonablc
In determining

whether "the requested

Ratc

whether counsel's

hourly rates are reasonable.

rates are in line with those prevailing

services by lawyers of reasonably

comparable

critical inquiry in setting the reasonable
the rcasonableness

1990)(citation

omitted).

the court must consider

in the community

skill. experience.

Slel1.I'1J11. U.S. 886. 890 n.11 (1984). "ID]etermination
465

establish

Ralldle

(4th Cir. 2013 )(quoting Hen,ley. 461 U.S.

434 n. 9)(alteration

those factors that do not apply," J)odeka.

within the initial

and reputation"

Ic)r similar
IJII/III

of the hourly rate will gcnerally

Ice. and the burden rests with the Icc applicant

ofa requested

rate," 1'1.1'/<'1' \'. 1:'1'(/11.902

be thc

to

F.2d 273. 277 (4th Cir.

As part of its inquiry. the court may rely on "aflidavits

4

I'.

from other

altorneys attesting to the reasonableness of the hourly rates:' and also the court's "knowlcdge of
the markel." Beyolld .'>vs. ll1c. v. World A "e. USA. LLC'. No. I'JM-08-92I. 20 II WL 3419565 at
.
*3 (D. Md. Aug. 11.2011). In this Districl. the Court's "market knowledge" is set fi)rth in
Appendix B of the U.S. District Coun of Maryland Local Rules. which provides Guidelines
Regarding Hourly Rates based upon length of professional experience. as follows:
(a) I.awyers admitted to the bar for less than five (5) years: $150')1--).

(b) Lawyers admitted to the bar li)r five (5) to eight (8) years:
$165-300.
(c) Lawyers admitted to the bar for nine (9) to founeen (14) years:
$225-350.
(d) Lawyers admitted to the bar li)r lineen (15) to nineteen (19)
years: $275-425.
(e) Lawyers admitted to the bar lilr twenty (20) years or more:
$300-475.
(I) Paralegals and lawelerks: $95-150.
Loc. R. App. H(3) (0. Md. 2016).l'laintiffs

ask the Coun to award altortley's fees at the

lollowing hourly rates: Jesse S. Johnson: $350.00 (over six years of experience): Michael L.
Greenwood: $400.00 (over II years of experience): .lames L. Davidson: $400.00 (over 12 years
of experience): Aaron D. Radbil: $400.00 (9 years of experience) and Eric Stravitz $250.00
(experience and length of bar membership not listed). ECF No. 17 at 6-7: Eel' No. 17-1 at'I'120
-21.

Defendant argues that the rates lor Johnson. the lead altorney on the case. should be
adjusted downward. to $275.00 per hour. in accordance with what the local rules would suggest
is reasonable lor an attorney with six years of experience. ECF No. 23 at 2. Johnson
acknowledges that his rate is higher than the local guidelines would recommend. but argues that
it isjustilied because Plaintiffs were successlili. the guidelines are not binding. similar rates were
recently approved by this Court in other cases. and Johnson's specilic rate was approved in a

5

recent class action case in the Northern District of California.
Fourth Circuit has emphasized.

ECF No. 24 at 10-11. As the

"market rate should guide the ICe inquiry'"

C;ril.11I1II \'.

The Mills

Corp .. 549 F.3d 313. 321 (4th Cir. 2008). A close look at the eases within this circuit on which
Plaintiffs rcly ShOll'S that they do not support his request ftJr an upward deviation from the local
guidclines.

The S350.00 hourly rate that Plaintiffs asserts Judge Garbis awarded in Slilllllock r.

Weis Morkels. was actually subsumed within a lower blended rate 01'$289.00 per hour. Slilllllock
\'. Weis,\forkels. loc .. No. CIV.A. MJG-7-1342.
il/cf)ooiels

I'.

in attorney's

ECF No. 128-1 at II. Furthermore.

Weslloke Ser\'s..while Judge Ilollander
fees was reasonable.

did lind that an award 01'$350.00 per hour

departing slightly above the guidelines in effect at that time.

the lawyer in question had 10 years of experience.
CIV.A. ELI 1-1 1-1837. 2014 WI. 556288, at

,\fcDooiels

* 14 (0. Md.

that an hourly rate of $275 rather than $350 is reasonable
attorncy with Johnson's

Weslloke Sen's ..

U.c. No.

Feb. 7. 2014). Thus. the Court tinds
bascdon

the local market rate lor an

Davidson and Radbil. Defendant does not dispute

their rates but argues that their hours should be disallowcd

proposition

I'.

skill and expericnee.

Turning next to attorneys Greenwood.

an appearance

in

in lilll as they did not lonnally enter

in the casc. ECF No. 23 at 4. DcICndant does not provide a citation lor this

and the Court linds no support Illr it in the case law. As PlaintifTnotes.

Circuit recently held that attorney's

fees "includes authorization

I<'lrreimbursement

perf<.mned not only by attorneys but also by persons doing .tasks traditionally
attorney and 1<.Ji'
which the attorney would customarily

charge the client:

the Fourth
lor work

perl<.mned by an

regardless oflvhether

licensed attorney. paralegal. or law clerk perl<.mned thcm'" Prieslley \'. Aslme. 651 FJd 410.
416 (4th Cir. 2011)(quoting

1(\'(/11

district court's denial of attorncys'

r. 80mhorl. 315 F.3d 239. 255 (4th Cir.2002))(rcversing
fees 1<.Ji'
Ilmk completed

6

by out-ol~state attorncys undcr the

a

Equal Access to Justice Act). II"the legal work 01" a person unable to enter an appearance
such as a paralegal

documented

the hours 01" Greenwood.

Davidson

Plaintiffs

so must thc work 01" a liccnsed allorney.

or law clerk. is compensable.

as their work is properly

in court.

and not Il)tllld to be duplicative.

as long

Thus. the Court !inds that

and Radbil arc eligible Il)r reimbursement.

argue that because

Defendant

did not contest the hourly rates of Greenwood.

D<J\'idson and Radbil. the Court must approve them. noting that "Iljhe district court cannot
decrease

a Ice award based on laetors not raised at all by the adverse party'" Rode \'.

/)el/arcipre/e.

892 F.2d 1177. 1183 (3d Cir. I(90)(internal

citation omilled).2

ignores the lact that ..the burden rests with the Ice applicant
requested

to establish

rate'" 1)~l'!('J" ,', 1"\"(111.902 F.2d 273. 277 (4th Cir. I (90)(eiting

U.S. 886. 895-96 n. II. (19S4)). In support of their requested

However

this

the reasonableness

IJIUIIl

of a

". S/e/1Son. 465

Icc. Plaintiffs again acknowledge

that a rate of $400.00 per hour is higher than the $225 - $350 per hour range that the local
guidelines

would suggest. but argue that an upward deviation

were approved

in other jurisdictions.

than the lodestar accumulated
3:09CV60S.

the guidelines

by counselJ

2010 WI. 2944907,

is justi!ied

because similar rates

are not binding and the fee request is lower

ECF N(). 17 at 7-S. Randle \'. H&1' ("api/al. Inc .. No.

.

at *S (E.D. Va. Julv 21. 2010). on which Plaintiffs

relv to
.

support a local market rate of between $425 and $450 per hour. docs not provide any I~lets
regarding

the years 01" experience

of the allorneys

rates. Taking into account the experience
rate as outlined

in question

01" Greenwood.

in the Local Rules and their specialized

that led the court to approve such

Davidson and Radbil. the local market
expertise.

as evidenced

Irom the

!Thc logic in the Third Circuit case 011 which Plaintiffs rely focuseson whether or not the fec applicant had
sufficient notice. Node \', Dellon:ipre1<!. 892 F.ld 1 177. I 188-89 (3d Cif. I 990W'Thc fec applicant retains the need
to be notified that it has to defend its fce request and the adversarial nature of the process is as strong post-lodestar
as prc-Iodestar.")

'As discussed. ill/I'll. Plaintiffs voluntarily reduced their hours by approximately 10 hours of billa hie lime. in an
effort to eliminate any work thai could be considered duplicative. ECF No. 24 at 4.

7

multitudc of class actions thcy havc becn a part of: thc Court find that an award of $350 pcr hour.
at thc high cnd of thc guidelincs.

is rcasonablc.

Finally. Plaintiffs rcqucst attorncy's

fces at a ratc 01'$250 pcr hour on bchalfoflocal

liaison counscl. Eric Stravtil.. Plaintiffs havc put forward no information
cxpcricncc

or length of bar membership.

Ilowcvcr. evcn calculating

rcgarding Stravtiz's

Stravitz's

tccs at thc lowcst

pCrJnissiblc ratc of $150 per hour. thc lodcstar total amounts to morc than thc $35.000 rcqucstcd
by Plaintiffs.
B. Reasonahle Hours
As rcquired by Appendix
application

accompanied

B ofthc Local Rulcs. counscl for Plaintiffs submitted thcir fee

by time rccords organizcd by litigation phasc. rcqucsting compensation

for 104.3 hours of work by Johnson: a combincd

15.4 hours of work by Grccnwald.

Davidson

and Radbil and 11.7 hours by Stravtiz. ECF No. 24-1 at 3.5 Plainiiffs notc that this numbcr
rel1ects a voluntary rcduction of approximatcly

10 hours of billable timc. in an cffort to eliminate

any work that could bc considcrcd

ECF No. 24 at 4. Dcfcndant argucs that thc Court

duplicativc.

should apply a 35% across thc board reduction for the time Plaintiffs dedicated to pleadings and
motions practicc bascd on an "asscmbly
Spccifically.

linc" production of said filings. ECF No. 23 at 5. 7.

DctCndant points thc Court towards complaints

othcr FDCP A class actions lawsuits commcnced
5. DctCndant argues that Plaintilfs'

and motions tiled in support of live

within weeks or months of thc instant casc. Id at

filings arc identical or substantially

similar to thc complaint

and motions liled in thosc cascs. Id" Plaintiffs arguc that their cxpcricncc

in similar lawsuits

gcncratcd syncrgics that allO\\"Cd thcm to drali matcrials morc rapidly than thcy othcrwisc could.

, As a result. rather than requiring Plaintiffs to provide:l supplement. the Court. in making its calculations.
will
calculate Stravitz's rate at S 150 per hour.
~\Vhile Plainitrrs initially failed 10 organize Mr. Stravtiz's billing records by litigation phase. this omission was
corrected

ill an updated

version orthc

records submitted

10 the COllrt. ECF No. 24-[

I'Defendant includes copies of the filings in said cases as exhibits to EeF No. 13.

at 11-13.

noting that they spent only approximately 4 hours draning and reviewing the complaint7 and
10.4 hours draning and reviewing the relevant motions. ECF No. 24 at 7-8: see a/so ECF No. 17I at 21-23. Comparing the Complaint Iiled in this case to the complaint in Be//ulII \'.
o(Frec/C'ric!.
.'

!.(/\!"

OffiCC's

.

WC'inhC'rt:& A.I'.I'ociale.l'. P.c.. 15-cv-2460. one of the cases referenced bv the

Defendant. the Court found the documents to be almost identical with the exception of brief
language addressing the relevant facts of each case. ECF No. 23-1 at 1-16. Therefore. the Court
will impose a 33%, reduction Illr the time spent by .Johnson. the lead counsel. draning the
pleadings of the case. reducing .Johnson's time

1i'0I11

3.1 hours to 2.1 hours. See Archho/d

\'.

7i'i.l1ale ATM. /nc .. No. II CV 5796 S.J LB. 2012 WI. 3887167. at *8 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7.
2012 )("Because preparing the pleadings and other filings submitted in connection with these
lawsuits involves little more than inserting the plaintifl~specilic allegations into a ready-made
template ... the time expended on these tasks should be minimaL")
J lo\\.ever. reviewing the two major filings in the case - the Motions Il)r Preliminary and
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement - the Court notes that while the motions submitted in
this case do share language with motions submitted in other cases. see e.g ECF No. 23-2.
Plaintiffs also spend considerable amount of time citing to applicable Fourth Circuit precedent
not relevant to earlier submissions. Thus. the Court linds that Plaintiffs dedicated a reasonable
amount of time to researching and draliing the motions and will not reduce the amount of time
requested lor mot ions practice.
Delendant also argues that the fees Illr Stravtiz should be disallowed in full as the billing
records are repetitive and non-descriptive. including such entries as "reviewed court notice:'
ECF No. 23 at 4. While the Court agrees that Stravtiz could have been more detailed in his

7 Specifically. Johnson. the lead attorney. spellt 3.1 hours dral1ing the Complaint and Davidson spent 1.2 hours
reviewing and revising the Complaint. Eel" No. 24 at 7.

record-keeping. the descriptions arc adequate. In addition. the amount of time Stravitz dedicated
to such routine tasks as "revicw cOUJ1
notice" was a mere .1 hours per time cntry. Thus. the Court
tinds that Stravtiz's request Ill[ 11.7 ofcompensablc

timc is rcasonable IlJr his work as liaison

counsel.
C. Calculation

of Lodesta,'

Ilaying dctermined the reasonable rate and reasonable hours expended. the Court will
now caleulate the lodestar. Johnson. the lead attorney. dedicated 100 hours to this case. which at
a rate of $275.00 per hour. justifies an award of $27.500.00.x In addition. Johnson spent 3.3 hours
in transit to the linal settlement hearing. which. per our local rules may be compensated at onehalfofthe

lawyer's hourly rate9Therefore.

the record supports a total award of$27.953.75

for

Johnson. 10Greenwald. Davidson and Radbil together spent a total of 15.4 hours on this case.
which. at a rate of $350.00 per hour. justi tics an award of $5.390.00.11 Finally. Stravitz billcd
11.7 hours. which the Court will compensate at a rate of $150.00 per hour for a total of
$1. 755.00.1~ Therefore. the record justities a total award of$35.098.75
D. Adjustmcnt

to Lodestar:

Plaintiffs also argue that the

jolll/soll

.Iol1l1sol1

in attorney's fees. 13

factors and Plaintiffs

Lenl of SuCCCSSl4

l~lCtorssupport their requested award of$35.000 in

attorneys' Ices and costs. emphasizing in particular counsel"s skill and experience: the

R Johnson's hours mc calculated as follows: 104.3 hours dedicated to the case in total (ECF No. 24-) <It 3). minus 1.0
hour for duplicative work drafting the Complaint and 3.3 hours in transit = 100 compensable hours. 100 hours x
$275/per hour ~ S21.500.00.
')Time spent ill long-distance travel above the two (2) hours limit each way. that cannot be devoted to substantive
work. may be charged at one-half
the lawyer's hourly ratc. Loc. R. ApI'. 13(2)(c). 3.3 hours x ($275 per hour/2) =
S453.75.
"'S21.500.00 + 453.75 = S21.953.75
r I Their lodestar amount is cakul<ttcd as follows: 15A hours :x S350/pcr hour = $5,390.00.
150, 11.7 ~ S 1.755.00
" S27 .953.75 (Johnson) + $5.390.00 (Greenwald. Davidson. Radbi I) + $1.755.00 (Stravtiz) = S 35.098.75.
IIThc Supreme COllt1 has "reccntly shed doubt on the rcliability" of utilizing the twelvc./o/mSOJ1 nlctors, arguing
that such an approach may lead to subjective application and dispar<ttc results. S'ee Andr"de \'. Af!"olek, 111c',852 F,
Supp, 2d 637. 645-646 (D. Md. 2012) (citing Pal/ilL' I', l\enn,l' A. ex rei. IVinn. 559 U.S. 542, 551 (2010)).
Accordingly, the COLIn will only addrcss the factors that arc relcvant and raised by the parties.

or

"s

10

uncertainty

of outcome

the similarity

bctwcen their rcqucsted

at 5-15. Defendant
considerations
reasonable
283-84

at trial: thcir contingcncy

fee arrangemcnt:

their successful

rcsults and

award and those in other FDCP II selliements.

ECF No, 17

does not address the JohllSon factors speci Iically and the Court Iinds thai such

were "subsumed

within the initial calculation

hourly rate!. i.e .. the lod6star]."

(4th Cir. 2(13)(quoling

of hours reasonably

at a

Randle \" II & I' Capilal, Inc .. 513 F. IIpp'x 282.

lIellSle.\', 461 U.S. at 434 n, 9)(alteration

the Court does not lind the application

expended

of the Johnsonillctors

in original).

Therefore.

here warrant a departure

Ii'om the

lodestar amount.
Finally. Plaintiffs'

levcl of success warrants an award of the full lodestar amount. "The

Fourth Circuit has described
calculation.
depending

the analysis of the lew I of success as the third step of a lee

noting that courts 'should

award some percentage

of the remaining

amount.

on the degree of success enjoyed by the plaintiff. ..• AfcFeele,l' \', Jackson .'II. £nlll1'l.

LLC. No. CY DKC 12-1019.2016

WL 4269042.

\', [Joc::ar. 738 F.3d 81. 88 (4th Cir. 2(13)).

at *3 (D. Md, Aug. 15. 2(16)(quoting

"What the eourtmust

achieve! d I a Ievcl of suecess that makes the hours reasonably

ask is whether .the plaintiff

expended

a satisfllctory

making a fee award .... Doe \', Kidd. 656 F. IIpp'x 643. 657 (4th Cir. 2(16)(quoting
U.S, at 434)), Ilere. the settlement
pay the two named Plaintiffs.
common

included.

ECF No, 22 at 3. In addition.

to be distributed
Defendant

letters going forward. to address Plaintiffs'

finds that Plaintiffs'

recovery justifies

the fee award.

11

basis ttl[

Hensley. 461

in relevant part. that Delendant

Garza and Easton. $1.000.00

fund in the amount of $12.425.00

class members,
collection

agreement

Ah'A/ee

would

each. and that it would create a
on a pro rata basis to each of the 884

agreed to change the language in its debt

concerns,

ECF No. 16 at4, Thus. the Court

E. Costs
Plaintiffs also request reimbursement for the following costs: $400 filing fee: $50 I'm hac
l'ice admission: $68 service of process: $2.1 0 PACER charges: and $646.42 in travel expenses

Irom Boca Raton. Florida to Greenbelt. Maryland to attend the final settlement approval hearing.
ECF Nos. 17-1: 24-1. Defendant does not challenge these costs and the Court tinds them
reasonable. Therefore. the Court will grant those amounts. totaling $1.166.52. in full. When
added to the attorney's fees. the total amount in fees and costs would equal $36.265.27. The
parties have agreed to limit the total award for attorney's fees and costs to $35.000.00 and the
Court. therefore. awards that amount.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiffs' Motion 1()rAttorney's Fees. ECF No. 17. is granted.

Plaintiffs are awarded $35.000.00 in attorney's Ices and costsX
Date: December

Z,120

ord~~all

issue.

16
Gcorge J. Ilazel
United States District Judge

12