Rivera Rios v. Winners Auto Sale, LLC

Filing 55

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/23/2024. (sat, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:

NOLVIA IRIS RIVERA RIOS

:

v.

:

WINNERS AUTO SALE, LLC d/b/a
Winners Auto Sales

Civil Action No. DKC 23-1140

:
:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for resolution in this Federal
Odometer Act case is an uncontested motion for attorneys’ fees and
costs filed by Nolvia Iris Rivera Rios (“Plaintiff”) against
Winners Auto Sale, LLC (“Defendant”).

(ECF Nos. 53, 54).

court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary.
105.6.

The

Local Rule

For the following reasons, the motion for attorneys’ fees

and costs will be granted in part.
I.

Background
Additional background can be found in the memorandum opinions

issued April 26, 2024 (ECF No. 38) and July 16, 2024 (ECF No. 51).
Under the Federal Odometer Act, a successful plaintiff can recover
three times his or her actual damage, or $10,000, whichever is
greater, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

49 U.S.C. § 32710(a)-(b).

In its July 16, 2024 memorandum opinion and order, this court found
that Plaintiff has not proven actual damage under the Federal
Odometer Act, so Plaintiff is entitled to $10,000 and attorneys’

fees and costs.

(ECF Nos. 51, 52).

motion for attorneys’ fees and costs.

Plaintiff has now filed a
(ECF No. 53).

Defendant

has not responded, and the time to do so has passed.
II.

Standard of Review
The Federal Odometer Act provides that “[t]he court shall

award costs and a reasonable attorney’s fee to the person when a
judgment is entered for that person.”

49 U.S.C. § 32710(b).

The

payment of attorneys’ fees to those who prevail on a Federal
Odometer Act claim is mandatory.

“Although the district court has

broad discretion in awarding attorney’s fees, it must ‘clearly
explain its reasons’ for choosing a figure.”

Nelson v. Cowles

Ford Inc., 77 F.App’x 637, 644 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Craig v.
Health & Human Servs., 864 F.2d 324, 328 (4th Cir. 1989), abrogated
on other grounds by Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789 (2002)).
“The proper calculation of an attorney’s fee award involves
a

three-step

process.

First,

the

court

must

‘determine

the

lodestar figure by multiplying the number of reasonable hours
expended times a reasonable rate.’”

McAfee v. Boczar, 738 F.3d

81, 88 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Robinson v. Equifax Info. Servs.,
LLC, 560 F.3d 235, 243 (4th Cir. 2009)).

“Next, the court must

‘subtract fees for hours spent on unsuccessful claims unrelated to
successful ones.’ Finally, the court should award ‘some percentage
of the remaining amount, depending on the degree of success enjoyed

2

by the plaintiff.’”

McAfee, 738 F.3d at 88 (quoting Robinson, 560

F.3d at 244).
In assessing the reasonableness of hours expended and rate
charged, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
has instructed district courts to apply the factors as set out in
Johnson v. Ga. Highway Exp., Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974).
McAfee, 738 F.3d at 88.

The Johnson factors as listed by the

Fourth Circuit are as follows:
(1) the time and labor expended; (2) the
novelty and difficulty of the questions
raised; (3) the skill required to properly
perform the legal services rendered; (4) the
attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the
instant litigation; (5) the customary fee for
like work; (6) the attorney’s expectations at
the outset of the litigation; (7) the time
limitations
imposed
by
the
client
or
circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy
and the results obtained; (9) the experience,
reputation and ability of the attorney; (10)
the undesirability of the case within the
legal community in which the suit arose; (11)
the nature and length of the professional
relationship between attorney and client; and
(12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.
McAfee, 738 F.3d at 88 n.5 (citing Barber v. Kimbrell’s Inc., 577
F.2d 216, 226 n.28 (4th Cir. 1978)).
III. Analysis
A. Attorneys’ Fees
As has been stated before:
“[T]he burden rests with the fee applicant to
establish the reasonableness of a requested
rate.”
Robinson, 560 F.3d at 244 (quoting
3

Plyler v. Evatt, 902 F.2d 273, 277 (4th Cir.
1990)).
“In addition to the attorney’s own
affidavits, the fee applicant must produce
satisfactory
specific
evidence
of
the
prevailing market rates in the relevant
community for the type of work for which he
seeks an award,” including, for example,
“affidavits of other local lawyers who are
familiar both with the skills of the fee
applicants and more generally with the type of
work in the relevant community.” Id. at 244,
245 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Morales v. LS Carpentry LLC, No. 22-CV-2507-DKC, 2023 WL 6517710,
at *2 (D.Md. Oct. 5, 2023).

Additionally, the Local Rules provide

that memoranda in support of motions for attorneys’ fees must
include, among other things, “a detailed description of the work
performed broken down by hours or fractions thereof expended on
each task.”

Local Rule 109(2)(b).

An appendix to the Local Rules

provides guidance on reasonable hourly rates, depending on years
of experience.

Local Rules, App’x B. 1

Under the Local Rules guidance, the rates are as follows:
a. Lawyers admitted to the bar for less than
five (5) years: $150-225.
b. Lawyers admitted to the bar for five (5) to
eight (8) years: $165-300.
c. Lawyers admitted to the bar for nine (9) to
fourteen (14) years: $225-350.
d. Lawyers admitted to the bar for fifteen
(15) to nineteen (19) years: $275-425.
e. Lawyers admitted to the bar for twenty (20)
years or more: $300-475.
f. Paralegals and law clerks: $95-150.
Local Rules, App’x B.3.
1

4

Plaintiff requests the following hourly rates for attorneys
who worked on this case:
•

Kristi Kelly: $550 (18 years of experience)

•

Pat McNichol: $525 (around 11 years 2 of experience)

•

Casey Nash: $525 (around 12 years 3 of experience)

•

Paralegals Natalie Cahoon, Olga Macias, and Ada Beltran: $225

(ECF No. 54-1, at 1-5).
Although these rates are considerably higher than the rates
listed in Local Rules Appendix B, Plaintiff asserts that the rates
are reasonable given the years of experience and achievements of
the attorneys and paralegals.

(ECF No. 54-1, at 1-5).

Plaintiff

also attached a declaration from Matthew Vocci, an experienced
local attorney, to support the reasonableness of the attorneys’
rates.

(ECF No. 54-2).

Although Plaintiff asserts that the attorneys spent 143.3
hours litigating the case for a lodestar amount of $66,902.50,
Plaintiff requests $30,000 in attorneys’ fees.

(ECF 54, at 5-6).

As noted above, Plaintiff’s hourly rates are considerably higher

Plaintiff’s motion does not provide when Pat McNichol was
admitted to the bar, but a declaration attached to the motion
states that Pat McNichol started working as a litigation associate
in 2013, approximately 11 years ago. (ECF No. 54-2, at 4).
2

Plaintiff’s motion does not provide when Casey Nash was
admitted to the bar, but the motion states that Casey Nash
graduated law school in 2012, approximately 12 years ago. (ECF
No. 54-1, at 6).
3

5

than the guidance in the Local Rules.

When calculated using the

high end of the guidelines, however, Plaintiff’s lodestar amount
is

approximately

attorneys’

fees

$45,185.
of

$30,000

Therefore,
are

Plaintiff’s

significantly

lower

requested
than

the

guidelines set out in this court’s Local Rules.
Additionally, the 143.3 hours spent include work done over a
substantial amount of time, from December 2022 through September
2024.

(ECF No. 54-1, at 13-42).

These hours include motions for

default judgments, preparation for hearings, and multiple briefs.
(ECF No. 54, at 1).

Plaintiff recognizes that her case was

straightforward and did not involve novel or difficult questions,
but she argues that litigation was prolonged because of Defendant’s
delays and unwillingness to cooperate.

(ECF No. 54, at 2-4, 10).

The court can reduce the attorneys’ fees awarded based on the
amount recovered.
F.2d at 226 n.28).

McAfee, 738 F.3d at 88 n.5 (citing Barber, 577
While Plaintiff acknowledges that she only

recovered $10,000, the minimum amount under the Federal Odometer
Act, Plaintiff already reduced her fee request by more than half.
(ECF No. 54, at 4, 9).
Although Plaintiff prevailed on her overall claim under the
Federal Odometer Act, she failed to prove actual damages.
No. 51, at 7).

(ECF

Therefore, the hours billed for preparation for

the June 20, 2024 evidentiary hearing on actual damages did not
add to “the degree of success enjoyed by the plaintiff.”
6

McAfee,

738 F.3d at 88 (quoting Robinson, 560 F.3d at 244).

Adding up the

time entries on Plaintiff’s timesheets from June 12, 2024 through
June 28, 2024, the attorneys and paralegals billed approximately
$14,535 for work related to the June 20, 2024 evidentiary hearing.
(ECF No. 54-1, at 38-39).

Therefore, $14,535 should be subtracted

from Plaintiff’s original lodestar of $66,902.50, for a revised
lodestar of $52,367.50.
Next,

the

court

finds

it

appropriate

that

Plaintiff

voluntarily reduced her requested attorneys’ fees, considering the
relative straightforwardness of the legal issues and the minimum
recovery obtained.

Plaintiff requested approximately 44.84% of
Therefore, the court will award

her lodestar attorneys’ fees. 4
Plaintiff

approximately

$52,367.50,

for

a

total

44.84%
of

of

the

$23,481.59

revised
in

lodestar

attorneys’

of

fees.

Accordingly, the fees requested will be granted in part.
B. Costs
Plaintiff also seeks to recover $2,829.03 in costs: $1,250.00
for translation services for the June 20, 2024 hearing; $57.94 for
a witness fee for Olalekan Isaac-Abiola; $402.00 to file the
complaint; $1.60 for a copy charge; $75.00 for service of process;
$5.30, $11.60, $0.90, and $16.50 for research; $415.00 for a
courier service; $26.68, $26.11, and $26.06 for Federal Express;
$30,000, Plaintiff’s reduced attorneys’ fees request, is
approximately 44.84%. of $66,902.50.
4

7

$44.99 for a CarFax report; $32.51 for travel to the September 8,
2023 hearing; $172.94 for travel to the June 20, 2024 hearing;
$8.00 for Wi-Fi; and $255.90 for the JAMS arbitration filing fee.
(ECF No. 54, at 9-10).

In support of Plaintiff’s request, she

includes an itemized list detailing each cost, the date incurred,
and the amount.

(ECF No. 54, at 9-10).

Defendant has not filed

an opposition to these costs.
Under the Federal Odometer Act, a court “shall award costs”
to a successful party.

49 U.S.C. § 32710(b).

Under 28 U.S.C. §

1920, costs include:
(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees
for
printed
or
electronically
recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for
use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and
witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of
making copies of any materials where the
copies are necessarily obtained for use in the
case;
(5) Docket
title;

fees

under section

1923 of

this

(6) Compensation of court appointed experts,
compensation of interpreters, and salaries,
fees,
expenses,
and
costs
of
special
interpretation services under section 1828 of
this title.
28 U.S.C. § 1920.

Additionally,

[T]he Fourth Circuit explained that costs
charged to losing defendants may include
“those
reasonable
out-of-pocket
expenses
incurred by the attorney which are normally
charged to a fee-paying client, in the course
8

of providing legal services.”
[Spell v.
McDaniel,] 852 F.2d
762,
771
(4th
Cir.
1988) (internal quotations omitted). Types of
costs charged to losing defendants include
“necessary
travel,
depositions
and
transcripts,
computer
research,
postage,
court costs, and photocopying.”
Almendarez
[v. J.T.T. Enters. Corp., No. 06-68-JKS], 2010
WL 3385362[, at] *7 [(D.Md. Aug. 25, 2010)]
(citing Vaughns v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince
George’s County, 598 F.Supp. 1262, 1289–90
(D.Md. 1984)).
Andrade v. Aerotek, Inc., 852 F.Supp.2d 637, 644 (D.Md. 2012)
(finding that some of plaintiffs’ requested costs in a Fair Labor
Standards Act case were reasonable).

The Local Rules provide that

“[g]enerally, reasonable out-of-pocket expenses (including longdistance telephone calls, express and overnight delivery services,
computerized online research, and faxes) are compensable at actual
cost.”

Local Rules, App’x B.4.

Several of the costs that Plaintiff requests are compensable
under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, including translation services, the witness
fee, the filing fee, and copy charges.

Additionally, Plaintiff

lists “Service of Process for Complaint” on May 1, 2023, as $75.
(ECF No. 54-1, at 8).

However, the proof of service document filed

in this case shows that the service processor’s fees were $24.00,
so Plaintiff will be awarded $24.00 for this cost.

(ECF No. 3).

Other costs not covered under section 1920 are compensable as
part of attorneys’ fees for “reasonable out-of-pocket expenses.”
Here, Plaintiff’s costs for research, the courier service, Federal
9

Express, the CarFax report and Plaintiff’s “Travel to September 8,
2023 Hearing” for $32.51 will be compensated as reasonable and
necessary litigation expenses.

(ECF No. 54, at 9).

However, Plaintiff’s “Travel to June 20, 2024 Hearing” for
$172.94 was not a reasonable expense because, as discussed above,
Plaintiff

failed

to

prove

actual

damages

at

the

evidentiary

hearing.

Because Plaintiff cannot recover attorneys’ fees for

this hearing, she also cannot recover travel fees for this hearing.
Additionally, Plaintiff has not explained why Wi-Fi should be
included as a litigation expense, and without a specific reason,
Wi-Fi is an overhead cost that is not recoverable.

Lastly, the

“JAMS Arbitration Filing Fee” on January 13, 2023, for $255.90 is
not a cost of litigation; rather, it is a pre-litigation expense.
Therefore, Plaintiff cannot recover this cost.
Accordingly, the costs requested will be granted in part, for
a total of $2,341.19 in costs.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’

fees and costs will be granted in part.

A separate order will

follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge

10