Croft et al v. L.C. Maxwell and Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 24

OPINION AND ORDER Affirming Magistrate Judge's 23 Opinion and Order, and Granting Plaintiffs' 17 MOTION for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Stephen J. Murphy, III. (DPar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RUSSELL CROFT AND
RENEE CROFT,

Case No. 2:17-cv-13421

Plaintiffs,

HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III

v.
L.C. MAXWELL AND
ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

/

OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S OPINION AND ORDER [23]
AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES [17]
On October 20, 2017, Plaintiffs Russell and Renee Croft filed their complaint
alleging that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA")
and the Michigan Occupational Code ("MOC"). ECF 1. Defendants did not respond.
Plaintiffs sought and received a clerk's entry of default. ECF 7–10. On March 21,
2018, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, but referred the
calculation of damages to the magistrate judge. ECF 14, 15. On April 4, 2018,
Plaintiffs filed a motion for attorney's fees. ECF 17. On January 5, 2019, the
magistrate judge entered his opinion that Plaintiffs should receive $101,000.00 in
damages. ECF 23. The Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary and will grant
the motion.

1

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Civil Rule 72(b) governs the review of a magistrate judge's recommended
disposition. The Court need not undertake any review of portions of a recommended
disposition to which no party has objected. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 153 (1985).
De novo review is required, however, if the parties "serve and file specific written
objections to the proposed findings and recommendations." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). In
conducting a de novo review, "[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the
magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Civil Rule 54(d) governs the award of attorney's fees and costs. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 54(d). The FDCPA authorizes federal courts to award reasonable attorney's fees
and costs to the prevailing party. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).
DISCUSSION
I.

Magistrate Judge's Recommended Disposition
The Court granted default judgment as to Defendants' liability under both the

FDCPA and the MOC and referred the calculation of damages to the magistrate
judge. ECF 14, 15. The magistrate judge determined that Plaintiffs were entitled to
$101,000.00 in damages–$1,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA, $25,000 in
actual damages under the FDCPA and MOC, and $75,000 in treble damages under
the MOC. ECF 23, PgID 670.
First, the FDCPA allows for statutory damages of $1,000. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692k(a)(2)(A).

2

Second, the FDCPA and the MOC allow a plaintiff to claim actual damages.
See id. at § 1692k(a)(1); Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.916. The magistrate judge found
that Plaintiffs "presented credible and compelling testimony regarding the emotional
distress they suffered as the result of Defendants' violation of the FDCPA and the
MOC." ECF 23, PgID 669. Moreover, the magistrate judge found that Plaintiffs'
alleged actual damages of $25,000 were within the range of damages award in the
District. See id. (collecting cases).
Third, "[i]f the court finds that the method, act, or practice was a wilful [sic]
violation, it may award a civil penalty of not less than 3 times the actual damages . . .
and shall award reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred in connection
with the action." Mich. Comp. Laws § 339.916(2). The magistrate judge reasonably
determined that Defendants' conduct constituted a willful violation of the MOC and
awarded Plaintiffs treble damages. ECF 23, PgID 670.
No party objected to the magistrate judge's recommended disposition. Because
the magistrate judge's recommended disposition is reasonable and supported by the
evidence, the Court will affirm the recommended disposition.
II.

Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney's Fees
Courts determine the amount of reasonable attorney's fees by multiplying "the

number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation" by "a reasonable hourly rate."
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). The determination of what constitutes
reasonable attorney's fees "is a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of a
trial judge." Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542, 558 (2010).

3

A. Reasonable Number of Hours
The "fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award
and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates." Hensley, 461
U.S. at 437. To carry the burden, attorneys must maintain billing time records that
are sufficiently detailed to enable the courts to review the reasonableness of the hours
expended. Wooldridge v. Marlene Indus. Corp., 898 F.2d 1169, 1177 (6th Cir. 1990),
abrogated on other grounds by Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of
Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001). Then, courts review the billings claims
for and exclude "excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary hours[.]" Butcher v.
Bryson, No. 3:12–00251, 2014 WL 4385876, at *3 (M.D. Tenn. Sept. 5, 2014) (citing
Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434).
Here, Plaintiffs' counsel expended 21.60 hours working on the case. ECF 17,
PgID 424; see also ECF 17-2, PgID 433. Plaintiffs' counsel's records detail the date of
work, a description for the task completed, the individual who completed the task,
that individual's hourly rate, and the individual's role. See ECF 17-2, PgID 433. Based
on a review of the submitted information, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' counsel
expended a reasonable number of hours pursuing the litigation.
B. Reasonable Hourly Rate
To determine a reasonable hourly rate "courts should look to the hourly rates
prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable
skill, experience, and reputation." Fuhr v. Sch. Dist. of Hazel Park, 364 F.3d 753, 762
(6th Cir. 2004) (citing Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896 n.11 (1984)). The District

4

generally accepts the State Bar of Michigan's Economics of Law Practice Survey as
its benchmark to determine reasonable hourly rates. Hazzard v. Schlee & Stillman,
LLC, No. 13–10038, 2014 WL 117411, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 13, 2014), adopted, 2014
WL 634205 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 18, 2014).
The State Bar of Michigan's 2017 Economics of Law Practice Survey
demonstrated that the mean hourly rate for an attorney in consumer law is $322. See
State Bar of Michigan, 2017 Economics of Law Practice: Attorney Income and Billing
Rate Summary Report, 6, https://www.michbar.org/file/pmrc/articles/0000153.pdf.
The mean hourly rate for an attorney with three to five years of practice experience
is $219. See id. p.4 Finally, the mean hourly rate for an associate was $236. See id.
Plaintiffs' counsel attached the United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey
Report from 2015–16 to the motion and that survey reflects similar trends. See
ECF 17-4.
Plaintiffs' counsel receives an hourly rate of $250. ECF 17-5, PgID 495.
Plaintiffs' counsel's hourly rate is within the rage of hourly rates prevailing in
Michigan for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience,
and reputation. The hourly rate is therefore reasonable.1
Because Plaintiffs' counsel's hourly rates and hours expended are reasonable,
the Court will award Plaintiffs attorney's fees in the amount of $5,167.50. ECF 17-2,
PgID 433.

The $125.00 and $100.00 hourly rates for the two paralegals that assisted in the
case are also reasonable. See Hazzard, 2014 WL 117411, at *4.

1

5

C. Costs
The FDCPA authorizes the court to award costs to Plaintiffs. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692k(a)(3). Here, Plaintiffs' counsel seeks reimbursement for the cost of sending
certified mail, hiring a process server, filing the case, and hiring an investigator to
find Defendants. ECF 17-3, PgID 434. The total costs sought are $878.52. The Court
finds that the costs are reasonable and will award them. The Court's award of
Plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs therefore totals $6,046.02.2
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the magistrate judge's
recommended disposition [23] is AFFIRMED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees [17]
is GRANTED.
The Court will enter judgment separately including the amounts for damages,
attorney's fees, and costs.
This is a final order and closes the case.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2019

s/ Stephen J. Murphy, III
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III
United States District Judge

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on January 22, 2019, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/ David P. Parker
Case Manager
In addition to the $101,000.00 for damages, the judgment against Defendants will
total $107,046.02.

2

6