SAYRE v. CUSTOMERS BANK
2:14-cv-03740
E.D. Pa.Aug 23, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Robert D. Sayre sued Customers Bank and prevailed on one count: a UTPCPL (Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law) claim; the court awarded trebled actual damages totaling $10,407.03 plus prejudgment interest, and authorized an award of reasonable attorney’s fees under Rule 54(d)(2) and §201-9(a).
- Plaintiff’s counsel (Crossen) submitted an amended fee petition seeking $55,584.38 (296.45 hours at $250/hr after a 25% discount), having removed some previously claimed time and paralegal charges.
- Defendant opposed, arguing the requested fees were excessive given that most factual allegations did not concern the UTPCPL claim and that plaintiff prevailed on only one of seven claims.
- The court applied governing standards on fee awards (Hensley proportionality, and Pennsylvania precedent balancing reasonableness and proportionality) and found the requested amount would create a windfall.
- The court awarded $25,699.22: it awarded all fees for 62.95 hours billed after summary judgment at $250/hr ($15,737.50) and 25% of the pre-summary-judgment remaining claimed fees ($9,961.72) to account for difficulty segregating time and partial success.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees under UTPCPL and Rule 54(d)(2) | Crossen sought statutory fees under §201-9(a) and complied with Rule 54(d)(2) timing/content requirements | Defendant did not dispute entitlement to seek fees but contested amount as excessive | Court: entitlement established; fee award granted in part but reduced for proportionality |
| Whether requested hours and total fee are reasonable | Crossen claimed 296.45 hours, $74,112.50 reduced to $55,584.38 by applying a 25% discount and excluding some time | Customers Bank argued the bulk of pleadings/time unrelated to UTPCPL and plaintiff prevailed on only 1 of 7 claims, so fees are disproportionate | Court: $55,584.38 excessive; awarded $25,699.22 after limiting award to post-SJ hours plus 25% of earlier fees |
| Proper method to allocate time between successful and unsuccessful claims | Crossen attempted to segregate and further reduced billed time; sought substantial recovery for overall work | Defendant argued segregation insufficient and that non-UTPCPL work should not be compensated | Court: where segregation difficult, court exercised discretion to award all fees for period when only UTPCPL claim remained and a percentage (25%) of earlier fees |
| Appropriate hourly rate and reductions | Crossen used $250/hr and applied a 25% internal discount | Defendant implicitly challenged reasonableness relative to result and time spent | Court: $250/hr reasonable based on submitted affidavit; applied substantive reductions to avoid windfall |
Key Cases Cited
- Sewark v. Lockhart, 699 A.2d 755 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) (factors for assessing reasonableness of counsel fees in UTPCPL cases)
- Croft v. P. & W. Foreign Car Service, 557 A.2d 18 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1989) (fee award need not be capped by jury damages)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar and reduction for limited success; district court may reduce award for partial success)
- McCauslin v. Reliance Finance, 751 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) (fees should be proportional to damages and not produce a windfall in UTPCPL cases)
- McDonald v. Pension Plan of the NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund, 450 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2006) (courts may apply percentage reductions to trim unreasonable hours)