Mateo v. Ars Nat'l Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-8434-SCM |
| Parties | ABNER MATEO, Plaintiff, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
[D.E. 15]
Before this Court is Plaintiff Abner Mateo's ("Mr. Mateo") motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $17,065.55, following his acceptance of an Offer of Judgment from Defendant ARS National Services, Inc. ("ARS").1 ARS opposed the motion.2 The Court has jurisdiction over this action3 and considered the parties' respective submissions.4 For the reasons stated herein, Mr. Mateo's motion for attorneys' fees and costs is GRANTED IN PART. The Court will award Mr. Mateo $10,681.80 in attorneys' fees and $579.05 in litigation costs, for a total award in the amount of $11,260.85.
This case arises from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collect Practices Act (the "Fair Debt Act").6 Mr. Mateo filed his Complaint on November 10, 2016, alleging that ARS National Services, Inc. ("ARS") violated the Fair Debt Act while attempting to collect a consumer debt from him.7 ARS is a debt collection firm.8 Mr. Mateo alleges that on or about January 18, 2016, ARS attempted to collect on his consumer debt by issuing a collection letter, the terms of which violated the Fair Debt Act.9
The Fair Debt Act requires that debt collectors provide consumers with written notice of certain rights with regard to the validation of debts.10 Mr. Mateo alleges that ARS has a policy which violates the Fair Debt Act by: (1) sending written collection communications which contain false, misleading, or deceptive representations or means in connection to the collection of a debt; and (2) using unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.11
Subsequently, the parties litigated the case lightly and briefly. ARS filed its Answer on December 19, 2016.12 On March 21, 2017, the Court held a Rule 16 conference13 and on May 23, 2017, the Court held a telephone conference.14 On or about May 30, 2017, ARS served an Offer of Judgment ("the Offer") under Rule 68,15 which states in relevant part:
Defendant . . . offers . . . to allow Judgment to be taken against it in this action in the amount of $1,001.00, in damages, plus reasonable and recoverable Attorney Fees and Costs earned through and including 14 days after the making of this Offer as determined by the Court.16
Mr. Mateo accepted the Offer on June 13, 2017.17
The parties negotiated but were unable to settle the issue of Mr. Mateo's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and on August 30, 2017, Mr. Mateo filed the present motion for attorneys' fees and costs.18 On September 18, 2017, ARS filed its Opposition,19 and on September 25, 2017, Mr. Mateo filed his Reply.20
Mr. Mateo's motion seeks $17,065.55 in attorneys' fees and costs.21 ARS opposes Mr. Mateo's motion on several grounds. ARS contends that the request is unreasonable because, among other things, Mr. Mateo's attorneys expended an unreasonable number of hours on certain tasks.22 Additionally, ARS maintains that the Court should not entertain Mr. Mateo's motion because it is untimely.23
Under the Fair Debt Act, a "debt collector who fails to comply with any provision"24 of the Act "with respect to an individual plaintiff is liable for any actual damages sustained as well as statutory damages as awarded by the court, not to exceed $1,000.00."25 In the case of successful actions to enforce liability, the Act provides for an award of "the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court."26
In the context of awarding attorneys' fees under the Fair Debt Act, a plaintiff may be considered a "prevailing party" if a "plaintiff succeeds on any significant issue in litigation which achieves some of the benefit plaintiff sought by bringing the suit."27 The Third Circuit has heldthat successful cases under the Fair Debt Act require an award of attorney's fees and that those fees "should not be construed as a special or discretionary remedy."28
The Fair Debt Act specifically provides that an attorney's fee under the Act must be "reasonable,"29 one which is "adequate to attract competent counsel, but which [does] not produce windfalls to attorneys."30 In order to determine a reasonable fee under the Fair Debt Act, courts must calculate the "lodestar" amount by "multiplying the total number of hours reasonably expended by a reasonable hourly rate."31
As the moving party, Mr. Mateo bears the burden of proving that his requested hourly rates and hours claimed are reasonable.32 If the opposing party wishes to challenge the fee award, the opposing party must then object "with sufficient specificity."33 Once an "adverse party raises specific objections to the fee request, the district court has a great deal of discretion to adjust the award in light of those objections."34 After such an objection, "the party requesting fees must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that its fee request is reasonable."35
Although the Third Circuit presumes that the lodestar yields a reasonable fee, district courts retain discretion to adjust the lodestar.36 "The party seeking adjustment has the burden of proving that an adjustment is necessary."37 District courts may adjust the lodestar based on a number of factors, including but not limited to:
the time and labor required; the novelty and difficulty of the legal issue; the skill required to perform the legal service properly; the customary fee in the community for similar work; the amount involved and results obtained; the experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys; the nature and length of the attorney-client relationship; and fee awards in similar cases.38
With the above principles in mind, the Court notes that ARS does not dispute that the Fair Debt Act provides for an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs, nor does ARS dispute that Mr. Mateo is a prevailing party in this matter due to his recovery of a judgment for $1,001.00.39 Accordingly, the Court will address the only issue in dispute, whether Mr. Mateo's requested attorneys' fees are reasonable.
As a preliminary matter, ARS contends that Mr. Mateo failed to file his motion for fees and costs within "14 days after entry of judgment" pursuant to Rule 54,40 and therefore, arguesthat the Court should reject Mr. Mateo's motion as untimely.41 In response, Mr. Mateo argues that his motion is timely, because "[j]udgment in this matter has not yet been entered."42 Mr. Mateo maintains that the Court mislabeled the July 17, 2017, Judgment, and that it is actually an order directing entry of judgment in the future.43
The Court disagrees with Mr. Mateo. Subject to some exceptions, Rule 58 mandates that "[e]very judgment . . . must be set out in a separate document."44 Unless the Court orders otherwise, in all cases where the Court grants relief other than costs or a sum certain, the prevailing party must submit a proposed form of judgment to the Court within 7 days of the Court's determination.45 A judgment is considered a separate document "for purposes of Rule 58 if it satisfies three requirements: 'first, the order must be self-contained and separate from the opinion; second, the order must note the relief granted; and third, the order must omit (or at least substantially omit) the District Court's reasons for disposing of the parties' claims.'"46
In the present case, it appears that Mr. Mateo submitted a proposed form of Judgment, which notes the relief granted, is separate from and substantially omits the reasons set forth in the Offer of Judgment.47 Accordingly, the July 17, 2017, Judgment met the requirements of Rule 58.48
Having determined the date of Judgment, Mr. Mateo filed his motion for fees and costs 45 days later, on August 30, 2017.49 The Court finds that Mr. Mateo's motion is untimely. The Rules required Mr. Mateo to file his motion for fees and costs "within 30 days of the entry of judgment . . . unless extended by the Court,"50 not within 14 days as ARS contends in its brief.51
Although Mr. Mateo failed to comply with the Local Rules, the Court is reluctant to deny Mr. Mateo attorneys' fees for that reason alone, particularly since other courts will often extend the time to file the required documentation where requested.52 As the Third Circuit has expressed, while "the Court should no doubt enforce compliance with such local rules . . . failure to comply should not be grounds for denial [of attorneys' fees], exclusive of other considerations."53 This is especially true, in light of the public policy considerations "for awarding fees as a matter of federallaw under a statutory scheme such as" the Fair Debt Act.54 Conversely, the Third Circuit has upheld the denial of attorneys' fees where counsel delayed for a year or more before filing their motion.55 In cases with less egregious delays, the Court may impose a "blanket percentage reduction" of the requested fees.56
Accordingly, although Mr. Mateo filed his motion 15 days late, the Court will excuse his "failure to comply with the dictates of the Local Rule and will construe [his] motion as a request for more time."57 Although the Court will consider Mr. Mateo's motion, the Court also finds that the 15-day delay warrants a percentage based reduction of five percent.58 The Court will apply that reduction after calculating the lodestar and any ordinary adjustments to the lodestar.59
Mr. Mateo seeks an award of attorneys' fees and costs totaling $17,065.55.60 Mr. Mateo requests an award of fees for Joseph K. Jones, Esq. ("Mr. Jones"), for 19.94 hours at $525.00 per hour - totaling $10,468.50, and for Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. ("Mr....
To continue reading
Request your trial