United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS and MOTION FOR LEAVE TO CITE
RICHARDX. YOUNG, JUDGE
Anthony Stinnett, brought this action against Defendants, EOS
CCA and U.S. Asset Management, Inc., pursuant to the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et
seq. The parties reached a settlement on November 2,
2016. The settlement agreement provides that Plaintiff is
entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, and the court will
determine a reasonable amount to award.
request for attorney's fees should not result in a second
major litigation, ” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461
U.S. 424, 437 (1983), but the parties vigorously dispute how
much should be awarded in this case. As the Supreme Court
recently emphasized, “trial courts 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
v. Vice, 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). With this guidance in
mind, the court briefly addresses the parties' arguments.
moves for an award of $11, 927.50 in attorneys' fees and
$609.00 in costs. Defendants object to the request for fees,
advancing four primary arguments: (1) the hourly rates
requested are unreasonable, (2) time spent on duplicative or
unnecessary tasks is not recoverable, (3) time spent on
boilerplate forms should be reduced, and (4) time spent on
purely administrative tasks is not recoverable. After
Plaintiff submitted his motion, this court ruled on fee
petitions in two nearly identical cases. See Reynolds v.
EOS CCA, No. 1:14-cv-01868-JMS-DML, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 161706 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 22, 2016); Reed v. EOS
CCA, No. 1:14-cv-01745-JMS-DKL, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
161709 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 22, 2016). Reynolds and
Reed involved the same Defendants and counsel for
both sides as this case. In those cases, this court
considered the same four arguments set forth above and only
found the first to be meritorious, holding the hourly rates
should be slightly reduced. For purposes of this motion,
Plaintiff does not object to those reduced rates.
court finds no principled reason to depart from the thorough,
practical decisions in Reynolds and Reed,
with one exception. After the court entered summary judgment
in favor of the plaintiffs in Reynolds and
Reed, Plaintiff's attorneys researched the
doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel in order to
determine if it could be used in a dispositive motion in this
case. Whereas no dispositive motion was ever drafted or
filed, Defendants maintain that this research was
unnecessary. The court agrees; these fees should not be
shifted to Defendants. The nearly $1, 000 billed in
connection with researching this doctrine shall be excluded.
Plaintiff's Motion for Assessment of Attorneys' Fees
and Costs (Filing No. 56) is GRANTED IN
PART. The court cannot readily calculate the fee
award with the reduced rates because the statement provided
by Plaintiff does not include the total number of hours
logged by each time keeper. Accordingly, Plaintiff is
ORDERED to file a new itemized invoice that
(a) reflects the reduced hourly rates and (b) indicates that
there is no charge for the collateral estoppel research,
within fourteen days of the date of this Order.
Plaintiff's request for costs goes unchallenged, and is
also moves to recover the attorneys' fees incurred
litigating this motion. Specifically, he seeks $3, 007.50.
This amount reflects the reduced hourly rates discussed
above. Noting no objection from Defendants, Plaintiff's
Supplemental Motion for Assessment of Attorneys' Fees and
Costs (Filing No. 61) is GRANTED.
Plaintiff has filed his amended invoice, the parties should
be able to easily add the three sums (the updated amount for
attorneys' fees, $3, 007.50 for supplemental
attorneys' fees, and $609.00 for costs) together for one
grand total. Defendants are ORDERED to remit
that grand total to Plaintiff within fourteen days of him
filing the amended invoice. No further Order shall issue.
 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to
Cite Additional Authority (Filing No. 60) is
 Plaintiff had three time keepers
working on his case: John Steinkamp (who bills at $300/hour),
Michael Eades (who bills at $200/hour), and an unnamed
paralegal (who bills at $125/hour). The plaintiffs in
Reynolds and Reed had the same three time
keepers. In those cases, the court reduced ...