Bardales v. Fontana & Fontana, LLC
2:19-cv-00340
| E.D. La. | May 3, 2021Background
- Plaintiffs Bardales and Russell brought a putative class action under the FDCPA alleging collection letters failed to notify that interest/fees were accruing; Bardales also faced a state-court collection suit.
- Plaintiffs filed an amended class complaint and moved for class certification; the court preliminarily approved a class settlement that provided $10,000 to be divided among class members.
- Plaintiffs moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(a)(3), seeking $36,420.41 (fees + costs) incurred through Oct. 15, 2020; defendants filed a notice of no objection.
- The magistrate applied the lodestar/Johnson framework, evaluated hourly rates and hours, and found some duplication in billing.
- The magistrate reduced requested rates/hours: set Bragg at $450/hr (reduced from requested $500–$600), Gesund at $300/hr (reduced from $350), applied a 10% reduction in hours for each attorney for duplication, and declined to further adjust the lodestar.
- Recommendation: award attorneys’ fees of $27,067.50 and costs of $2,180.41 to Plaintiffs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees under the FDCPA | Plaintiffs prevailed via the settlement and are entitled to reasonable fees and costs under §1692k(a)(3) | No objection to fees award | Plaintiffs are prevailing parties by settlement; fee award is mandatory under §1692k(a)(3) and should be awarded |
| Reasonable hourly rate for lead counsel (Bragg) | Requested $500 (stated standard $600, reduced to $500); pointed to out-of-district FDCPA awards and experience | No objection | Court found $500 unsupported in this district and set rate at $450/hr |
| Reasonable hourly rate for co-counsel (Gesund) | Requested $350 based on 10+ years FDCPA experience and practice focus | No objection | Court found insufficient local support and set rate at $300/hr |
| Hours billed / billing judgment and lodestar adjustment | Sought 33.9 hours (Bragg) and 49.4 hours (Gesund); asserted reduction efforts | No objection | Court found adequate documentation but duplication between attorneys; reduced each attorney's hours by 10%; lodestar was not otherwise adjusted |
Key Cases Cited
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (a plaintiff may be a prevailing party through settlement that confers meaningful relief)
- Romain v. Walters, 856 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 2017) (judicially sanctioned settlement constitutes prevailing-party status)
- Davis v. Credit Bureau of the S., 908 F.3d 972 (5th Cir. 2018) (award of fees under the FDCPA is mandatory)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (twelve-factor test for attorneys’ fees)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (hours must be reasonably expended; billing judgment required)
- Perdue v. Kenny A., 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar is presumptively reasonable)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (reasonable hourly rate measured by prevailing market rates)
- Nisby v. Commissioners Court of Jefferson County, 798 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1986) (lodestar analysis guidance)