Merrick v. Michael J. Scott, P.C.
3:10-cv-02536
N.D. Tex.Jun 22, 2011Background
- Merrick sued Michael J. Scott, P.C. for FDCPA violations in the N.D. Texas, seeking only statutory damages of $1,000.
- The parties settled; defendants paid $1,000 in statutory damages and left attorney’s fees to the court.
- Merrick moved for attorney’s fees and costs totaling $3,377 plus $405 in costs.
- Scott, contesting, urged a fee cut to $1,035 and challenged hours, rates, and billing practices.
- The court approved $405 costs and a $290 hourly rate, but markedly reduced hours and eliminated paralegal time due to clerical work and duplicative entries, applying a 15% further haircut for lack of billing judgment.
- The recommended award totaled $1,760.75 (fees $1,355.75 + costs $405).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of lodestar hours | Merrick requests 11.3 attorney hours and 0.8 paralegal hours at $290/$125. | Hours include clerical and duplicative work; should be reduced. | Hours reduced; clerical and duplicative work excluded; 5.8 attorney hours trimmed; paralegal time eliminated. |
| Reasonableness of hourly rates | Rates claimed are reasonable for the district. | Rates are not reasonable or customary. | Hourly rate of $290.00 deemed reasonable and customary in the district. |
| Billing judgment and centering reductions | Billing judgment exercised; no substantial reductions argued. | Poor billing judgment and summary billing justify reductions. | 15% reduction applied for failure to exercise billing judgment. |
| Award of costs | Costs should be recoverable as statutory damages under the FDCPA. | Costs should be limited. | Costs approved at $405, properly shifted to defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1983) (establishes lodestar calculation and reasonable hours standard)
- Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom, 50 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 1995) (guides reasonableness of hours and rates; billing judgment)
- Walker v. U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761 (5th Cir. 1996) (billing judgment, reduction when none shown)
- Watkins v. Fordice, 7 F.3d 453 (5th Cir. 1993) (exclusion of excessive or duplicative time)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974) (twelve Johnson factors for fee determinations)
- Cambridge Toxicology Group, Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2007) (supports discount for lack of billing judgment)