Cooper v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.
338 F. Supp. 3d 729
E.D. Ill.2018Background
- Cooper sued Retrieval-Masters Credit Bureau (RMCB) under the FDCPA seeking statutory and actual damages and attorney fees; summary judgment granted to Cooper on liability.
- At a July 28, 2016 settlement conference, RMCB offered $500 in damages plus reasonable fees and costs; Cooper rejected the offer.
- At trial Cooper recovered $500 in statutory damages and $0 in actual damages; judgment entered for $500.
- Cooper moved under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) for $65,357.90 in attorney fees and $1,042.37 in costs.
- The court limited recoverable attorney time to work performed through the July 2016 settlement offer (plus time to review it), set reasonable hourly rates for counsel, reduced the lodestar by 20% for limited success, and awarded costs for a deposition transcript and routine litigation expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cooper is entitled to attorney fees and costs under the FDCPA | Cooper sought full fees incurred through trial and $1,042.37 in costs | RMCB disputed amount and contended some fees and costs were unreasonable or unnecessary | Cooper is entitled to fees and costs; court awards reduced fees and full requested costs |
| Whether fees after the July 2016 settlement offer are recoverable | Fees through trial are recoverable because counsel litigated the case | Post-offer hours are excessive given RMCB’s substantial offer equal to the eventual recovery | Fees limited to hours through settlement offer (plus review): 9.6 hrs (Wood) and 17.2 hrs (Chatman) |
| Appropriate hourly rates for counsel | Counsel requested $372 (Wood) and $335 (Chatman) per hour | RMCB challenged those rates as unsupported for FDCPA work in this District | Court set rates at $327/hr (Wood) and $315/hr (Chatman) based on district precedent and market evidence |
| Whether lodestar should be adjusted for degree of success | Full lodestar appropriate because plaintiff prevailed on liability | Reduction warranted given minimal monetary recovery and failure to obtain actual damages | Court reduced lodestar by 20% for limited success; award = $6,845.76 in fees + $1,042.37 costs = $7,888.13 |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlacher v. Law Offices of Phillip J. Rotche & Assocs., 574 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2009) (prevailing FDCPA plaintiffs entitled to attorney fees and costs)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar method: reasonable hours × reasonable rate)
- Gastineau v. Wright, 592 F.3d 747 (7th Cir. 2010) (lodestar is touchstone for fee calculations)
- Thorncreek Apartments III, LLC v. Mick, 886 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2018) (lodestar is starting point; may adjust for case difficulty and success)
- Moriarty v. Svec, 233 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2000) (substantial settlement offers can limit recoverable post-offer fees)
- Moriarty ex rel. Local Union No. 727 v. Svec, 429 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2005) (district court must explain use of a settlement-offer cut-off if applied)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (U.S. 2010) (strong presumption that lodestar is reasonable)
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1992) (degree of plaintiff's success is central in determining fee adjustments)
- Johnson v. GDF, Inc., 668 F.3d 927 (7th Cir. 2012) (defendant pays for hours reasonably expended; exclude excessive or redundant hours)