Mahar v. GC Services, LP, 1:14-cv-00582

This is a FDCPA/TDCA suit by Mahar against GC Services, L.P. for repeated phone calls and wage garnishment threats.
GC Services served a Rule 68 offer of judgment on August 14, 2014 offering $1,000 plus costs and attorney’s fees to Mahar.
Mahar accepted the offer on August 28, 2014; fees and costs were later disputed.
Mahar sought $2,100 in attorney’s fees and $400 in costs; GC Services argued only $750 in fees and that costs were appropriate at $400.
The magistrate judge recommended a total award of $2,500 in attorney’s fees and costs, plus $1,000 in statutory penalties, under an approved offer of judgment.
The court emphasized the reasonableness of Mahar’s fee request and criticized GC Services’ conduct and tone in its fee briefing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of fees	Mahar’s fees ($2,100) are reasonable after billing judgment.	GC Services argues the fees are inflated and unnecessarily high.	$2,500 total (fees and costs) deemed reasonable under Johnson factors.
Clerical vs. attorney work	Billing records show attorney work; four attorneys involved was reasonable.	Most work was clerical and could be performed by paralegals.	Court found lead attorney must perform actual legal work; billing time considered reasonable within the fee award.
Impact of offer of judgment			Offer did not bar fee recovery; fees awarded consistent with the offer and acceptance.
Conduct in fee dispute		GC Services’ tone and accusations were inappropriate.	Court noted inappropriate tone but did not reduce fees on that basis.

Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (factors for determining reasonable attorney’s fees (Johnson factors))
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (statutory standards for awarding fees and de novo review limits)
Battles v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1987) (procedure for objections to magistrate recommendations)