Kottle v. Unifund CCR, LLC
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9271
C.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiff Jordan Kottle sued Unifund under the FDCPA and California Rosenthal Act after Unifund sued him in state court to collect a Citibank account; claims included harassing calls, improper dunning letter, and failure to serve state-court complaint.
- Plaintiff dismissed two defendants and later narrowed the federal complaint to one claim: attempt to collect an amount not authorized by agreement (the dunning letter).
- Unifund served a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for $2,001 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs for the federal action; Kottle accepted.
- Kottle applied for attorneys’ fees of $21,564 based on 87.8 hours by two attorneys (rates $300 and $315/hr), with an initial voluntary 20% reduction for duplication.
- Unifund conceded Kottle prevailed but challenged the fee amount, arguing substantial reductions were warranted because two of three initial claims were abandoned, and asserting duplicative and nonrecoverable time.
- The magistrate judge granted fees but reduced the lodestar by 50% for partial success, awarding $10,782; costs were reserved for a separate filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to fees | Kottle is the prevailing party entitled to fees under FDCPA and Rosenthal Act | Unifund concedes prevailing status but disputes amount | Kottle entitled to fees; award granted but adjusted for partial success |
| Effect of abandoned/unsuccessful claims | Fees may include work on related claims; initial 20% voluntary reduction already taken | Reduce fees drastically (67%) because 2 of 3 claims were not prevailed on; some claims were frivolous | Court rejected mechanical proportional reduction; applied Hensley and found claims were related -> 50% reduction for partial success |
| Duplication / multiple attorneys | Kottle already applied 20% reduction for duplication; counsels’ time justified | Reduce additional hours for duplication (seek 6 hrs or 50% of 10.6 hrs) | No further reduction; voluntary 20% discount sufficed |
| Non-recoverable or unrelated time (clerical, copy-paste pleadings, state-court work) | Time entries reflect attorney work; no state-court time billed | Eliminate hours as clerical, boilerplate, or for state-court litigation | Court rejected these challenges; 50% overall haircut already accounts for some excess; sworn declarations dispelled state-court time issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (lodestar method and reduction for hours not reasonably expended)
- City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (rejecting strict proportionality rule between success and fee award)
- Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274 (clerical tasks not recoverable as attorney time; principles for fee awards)
- Yohay v. City of Alexandria Employees Credit Union, Inc., 827 F.2d 967 (awarding fees disproportionate to damages in consumer-protection context)
- Perez v. Perkiss, 742 F. Supp. 883 (FDCPA fee award practices)