Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reed v. EOS CCA

United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division

November 22, 2016

Thomas Reed, Plaintiff,
EOS CCA, Defendant.


          Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge

         This case involves Defendant EOS CCA's (“EOS”) efforts to collect a principal amount, interest, and fees/collection costs on behalf of AT&T Mobility. AT&T Mobility claimed Plaintiff Thomas Reed owed these amounts after he stopped making payments on his AT&T Mobility account. Mr. Reed initiated this action against EOS, alleging that it violated § 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). He argued that EOS violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect interest and collection costs not provided for in any contract between him and AT&T Mobility. Despite settling numerous other cases involving the same issue, EOS opted to vigorously litigate this case. Ultimately, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Reed on his § 1692e and § 1692f claims related to the collection of interest and costs, finding that EOS had not provided any evidence suggesting the presence of a binding contract between Mr. Reed and AT&T Mobility that provided for the imposition of those amounts. [Filing No. 62 at 9-12.] The Court denied Mr. Reed's summary judgment motion as it related to his § 1692d claim, finding that he had not presented any evidence of a violation of that provision. [Filing No. 62 at 12-13.] On May 13, 2016, Mr. Reed notified the Court that he was voluntarily dismissing his § 1692d claim. [Filing No. 67.][1]

         Presently pending before the Court are Mr. Reed's Motion for Assessment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, [Filing No. 75], and his Supplemental Motion for Assessment of Attorneys' Fees and Costs, [Filing No. 83]. As discussed below, the Court finds the fees and costs Mr. Reed requests to be reasonable for the most part, with some adjustments. Accordingly, it grants Mr. Reed's motion in part and denies it in part.


         Relevant Background

         Mr. Reed initiated this lawsuit on October 24, 2014, [Filing No. 1], and, after conducting discovery and attending numerous pretrial conferences (including a settlement conference), he moved for summary judgment on December 29, 2015, [Filing No. 51]. As noted above, Mr. Reed obtained summary judgment on two claims, and voluntarily dismissed his remaining claim. [Filing No. 62; Filing No. 67.] In the meantime, EOS entered into settlements without significant litigation with seven plaintiffs who filed cases in this District asserting claims based on facts substantially similar to the facts in this case. [See George v. EOS CCA, et al., 1:14-cv-0556-SEB-DML; Smith v. EOS CCA, 1:14-cv-01778-WTL-MJD; Emery v. EOS CCA, et al., 1:13-cv-1421-LJM-DKL; Milliken v. EOS CCA, 1:13-cv-01748-WTL-TAB; Hunt v. EOS CCA, et al., 1:13-cv-01787-TWP-DML; Hill v. EOS CCA, et al., 1:13-cv-02049-RLY-TAB; Howell v. EOS CCA, 1:14-cv-01259-WTL-MJD.] Despite the similarity of Mr. Reed's claims, EOS chose to vigorously litigate this case (including the issue of attorneys' fees and costs) along with another substantially similar case, Reynolds v. EOS CCA & U.S. Asset Management, Inc., 1:14-cv-1868-JMS-DML.[2]

         After obtaining summary judgment on two of his claims, the parties agreed that Mr. Reed would receive $1, 000 in statutory damages from EOS, and the fee issue is now the only issue remaining in this litigation. [See Filing No. 83 at 1.] Mr. Reed now seeks a total of $26, 791.51 in attorneys' fees and $1, 390.26 in costs. [Filing No. 75; Filing No. 83.]


         Applicable Law

         Section 1692k of the FDCPA provides that “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of…in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). The party seeking the fee award has the burden of proving the reasonableness of the fees sought. Spegon v. Catholic Bishop of Chi., 175 F.3d 544, 550 (7th Cir. 1999). Once this burden is met, then the party opposing the fee award has the burden of demonstrating why the amount sought is unreasonable. Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 664 F.3d 632, 640 (7th Cir. 2011).

         Typically, the district court “is in the best position to make the ‘contextual and fact-specific' assessment of what fees are reasonable.” Montanez v. Simon, 755 F.3d 547, 553 (7th Cir. 2014). Although the district court's discretion is not boundless, the United States Supreme Court “has said that there is hardly any ‘sphere of judicial decisionmaking in which appellate micromanagement has less to recommend.'” Id. (quoting Fox v. Vice, 131 S.Ct. 2205, 2216 (2011)).

         The Court “generally begins the fee calculation by computing a ‘lodestar': the product of the hours reasonably expended on the case multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.” Montanez, 755 F.3d at 553. “Although the lodestar yields a presumptively reasonable fee, ” the Court may still adjust that fee based on factors not included in the computation. Id.(citing Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983)). Ultimately, “the guiding inquiry is whether ‘the plaintiff achieve[d] a level of success that makes the hours reasonably expended a satisfactory basis for making a fee award.'” Montanez, 755 F.3d at 553 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434). In calculating the lodestar the Court “need not, and indeed should not, become green-eyeshade accountants. The essential goal in shifting fees (to either party) is to do rough justice, not to achieve auditing perfection.” Fox, 131 S.Ct. at 2216. Accordingly, the Court “may take into account their overall sense of a suit, and may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time.” Id.



         Mr. Reed argues in support of his motion that EOS chose to litigate this case even though it settled seven similar cases, that an award of attorneys' fees is mandatory under the FDCPA when the plaintiff prevails, that the lodestar method is applicable, that his attorneys' rates are reasonable, and that his attorneys spent a reasonable amount of time litigating the case. [Filing No. 76 at 1-13.] Mr. Reed submits the curriculum vitae of his attorneys, [Filing No. 75-2; Filing No. 75-5], his attorneys' itemized invoices, [Filing No. 75-3], and the Declaration of David J. Philipps, [Filing No. 75-6]. Mr. Philipps is an experienced FDCPA litigator who opines that Mr. Reed's attorneys have “a solid reputation for their work for consumers on FDCPA lawsuits, ” and that their hourly rates are “at the low end of the range of rates charged in the Indianapolis market for work performed in contingent, statutory fee-shifting cases, particularly considering their experience in such matters.” [Filing No. 75-6 at 20-21.] Mr. Philipps also opines that the paralegal who performed work on Mr. Reed's case has a rate which is within the reasonable range. [Filing No. 75-6 at 21.] Finally, he states that “[t]he records reveal that [Mr. Reed's attorneys] have been extremely efficient in their time, with much of the time incurred by [an associate], who has a lower rate.” [Filing No. 75-6 at 21.]

         In response, EOS argues that the fees Mr. Reed seeks should be “drastically reduced.” [Filing No. 80 at 1.] It agrees that the lodestar method applies, but argues that the hourly rates requested are unreasonable, and the hours expended are unreasonable for a variety of reasons, including that: (1) time was spent on boilerplate forms and tasks; (2) time was spent on purely administrative and clerical tasks; and (3) time was spent on duplicative, excessive, and unnecessary tasks. [Filing No. 80 at 2-14.] EOS requests that the fee award be reduced to an amount not to exceed $5, 000. [Filing No. 80 at 14.]

         On reply, Mr. Reed reiterates many of his arguments, and stresses that EOS levied an aggressive defense in this case, that his attorneys needed to tailor boilerplate pleadings to this case, that the items EOS claims were purely clerical in nature were not, and that the attorneys did not perform duplicative work. [Filing No. 82.]

         The Court will address each of EOS's arguments in turn.

         A. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.