Salgado v. Synergy Payment Solutions Incorporated
2:24-cv-00523
| D. Ariz. | Nov 12, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Angel Salgado was awarded $4,305 in damages against Synergy Payment Solutions Inc. and related defendants under the Arizona Minimum Wage Act (AMWA) after obtaining a default judgment.
- Plaintiff requested attorneys’ fees in the amount of $18,556.50 for 41.7 hours of work and $1,387.05 for costs already incurred.
- Plaintiff also sought $6,912.14 in anticipated attorneys’ fees and costs for future collection efforts required to enforce the judgment.
- The Court previously expressed concern about whether future, speculative collection costs could be awarded under the applicable statutes in similar cases.
- Plaintiff provided detailed documentation, including a collection agreement with Parker Law Firm, to support the anticipated collection costs as non-speculative and necessary in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs | Hours and hourly rate are reasonable due to unusual defendant engagement; costs supported by itemization | Not contested | Fees/costs to date found reasonable |
| Recovery of anticipated collection costs | Detailed collection agreement and historic need for such services make future costs non-speculative and necessary | Not contested | Collection costs request not speculative in this context |
| Statutory authorization for collection costs | AMWA’s fee-shifting language broad enough to include post-judgment collection costs | Not contested | Fee-shifting provision includes collection costs |
| Standard for awards of prospective collection fees | Plaintiff made a specific, fact-based showing for need and amount; does not apply to all prevailing plaintiffs | Not contested | Such awards are fact-dependent and require specific showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaw v. AAA Eng'g & Drafting, Inc., 213 F.3d 538 (10th Cir. 2000) (attorney's fees can be awarded for post-judgment collection actions under fee-shifting statutes)
- Sky Cable, LLC v. DIRECTV, Inc., 23 F.4th 313 (4th Cir. 2022) (fee-shifting statutes permit recovery for post-judgment collection efforts)