Gibson v. SIMM Associates, Inc.

Filing 10

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan ; granting 9 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 9 Motion for Costs (Re: 8 Judgment, Entering Default Judgment, Ruling on Motion for Default Judgment ) (RGG, Chambers)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KARI GIBSON, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
SIMM ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-CV-0730-CVE-FHM

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (Dkt. # 9). Plaintiff filed
her complaint on December 8, 2014, alleging multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Dkt. # 2. A return of service was filed on behalf
of plaintiff showing that defendant was served through its registered agent by certified mail, return
receipt signed, on December 15, 2014. Dkt. # 4. Upon plaintiff’s motion for entry of default (Dkt.
# 5), the Court Clerk made an entry of default. Dkt. # 6. Following plaintiff’s motion for default
judgment (Dkt. # 7), the Court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant
for $3,000 in statutory damages. Dkt. # 8. Plaintiff now moves for an award of attorneys’ fees and
costs. Dkt. # 9, at 1. As defendant has not appeared or defended this case, the Court enters this
opinion and order without waiting for a response to plaintiff’s motion.
The FDCPA provides that “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this
subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of . .
. in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action,
together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). The
Tenth Circuit has approved of the lodestar method for calculating reasonable attorneys’ fees under

the FDCPA. Anchondo v. Anderson, Crenshaw & Assoc., L.L.C., 616 F.3d 1098, 1102 (10th Cir.
2010); see also Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Using this method, “the number of
hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate” results in a
presumptively reasonable fee. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433. The Court may then adjust the lodestar
based on objections or other factors, including the level of success the prevailing party achieved. Id.
at 436-37 (“If . . . a plaintiff has achieved only partial or limited success, the . . . [lodestar] may be
an excessive amount. . . . The district court may attempt to identify specific hours that should be
eliminated, or it may simply reduce the award to account for the limited success.”).
Plaintiff’s motion employs the lodestar method and seeks $2,455 in attorneys’ fees,
representing thirteen hours of work by two attorneys. Dkt. # 9, at 3. Christopher D. Wolek, a partner
with twenty years of experience as an attorney, performed 2.4 hours of work at a rate of $250 per
hour. Dkt. # 9-2, at 1-2. Courtney M. Wolin, an associate with eleven years of experience as an
attorney, performed 10.6 hours of work at a rate of $175 per hour. Dkt. # 9-2, at 1-2. The Court finds
that the attorneys’ rates are reasonable in the Tulsa market, given the success achieved and the
attorneys’ experience. See Okla. Nat. Gas Co. v. Apache Corp., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1246, 1249-50
(N.D. Okla. 2004); N.E. Okla. Elec. Coop. v. S.W. Bell Tele. Co., 11-CV-0320-CVE-FHM, Dkt.
# 122 (N.D. Okla. Oct. 29, 2013); D.H. v. Ponca City Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 71, No. 06-CV-523
CVE-SAJ, 2007 WL 2670105, at *2-*3 (N.D. Okla. Sept. 7, 2007). Upon review of the detailed time
records submitted by plaintiff’s attorneys, see Dkt. # 9-1, at 1-2, the Court finds the amount of time
spent on plaintiff’s case to be reasonable and not duplicative. Thus, the appropriate lodestar for this
case is $2,455, that number being the sum of the products of the rates of pay and the hours worked

2

for each of plaintiff’s two attorneys. The Court sees no reason to reduce the lodestar amount based
on the level of success achieved. Thus, the Court awards $2,455 in attorneys’ fees to plaintiff.
Plaintiff also seeks to recover the costs of this action. Dkt. # 9, at 4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)
states that, unless otherwise provided, “costs . . . should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Plaintiff
is the prevailing party in this case. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433 (“[P]laintiffs may be considered
‘prevailing parties’ . . . if they succeed on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of
the benefit the parties sought in bringing suit.” (quoting Nadeau v. Helgemoe, 581 F.2d 275, 278-79
(1st Cir. 1978))). Plaintiff seeks $410.59 in costs, which is comprised of the filing fee for the
complaint, postal charges, and thirty-five pages of copies at a rate of $0.15 per page. Dkt. # 9-1, at
2. Federal statute permits the court to tax as costs any “[f]ees of the clerk and marshal” and “[f]ees
for . . . the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use
in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Furthermore, this Court has previously allowed for reimbursement
of postage as an expense that normally is charged separately in the Tulsa legal community. D.H.,
2007 WL 2670105, at *4. Thus, all of the costs that plaintiff requests may be taxed against
defendant. The Court finds plaintiff’s request for costs to be reasonable, and so the Court will tax
as costs $410.59, the full amount plaintiff seeks.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees and costs (Dkt.
# 9) is hereby granted. Attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,455 are awarded to plaintiff, to be paid
by defendant. Costs in the amount of $410.59 are awarded to plaintiff, to be paid by defendant. A
separate judgment will be entered herewith.
DATED this 27th day of January, 2015.

3