Meidal v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A.
- Paul Magnuson
- 0:18-cv-00985
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Meidal v. Messerli & Kramer, Judge Magnuson awarded $4,890 in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act attorney’s fees, using a $300 hourly rate and 16.3 hours.
Andrew Meidal and his attorney were awarded $4,890 in attorney’s fees, and Messerli & Kramer, P.A. was the opposing party affected by that fee award.
What happened
In Meidal v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A., Andrew Meidal alleged that Messerli & Kramer violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Before the defendant answered, it made an offer of judgment that Meidal accepted, providing $1,001 plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
The parties disagreed about the proper fee. Meidal’s attorney requested payment for 16.3 hours at $400 per hour. The court found that the case required little time and skill, relied substantially on template documents, and lacked sufficient evidence supporting the requested hourly rate. It nevertheless found that the 16.3 hours claimed were reasonable.
Judge Magnuson set the reasonable hourly rate at $300 and ordered that Meidal was entitled to collect $4,890 in attorney’s fees. The order did not decide the underlying allegations because the case had been resolved through the accepted offer of judgment.
The detailed version
- Meidal v. Messerli & Kramer, P.A. · No. 0:18-cv-00985
- Paul Magnuson
- Sept. 19, 2018
Background
Andrew Meidal filed a complaint alleging that Messerli & Kramer, P.A. violated multiple provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Before the defendant filed an answer, it served Meidal with an offer of judgment. Meidal accepted the offer, which provided for $1,001 plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, with the amount to be determined by agreement or by the court.
The parties’ attorneys could not agree on a reasonable hourly rate or the number of compensable hours. Meidal’s attorney, Darren Brayer Schwiebert, stated that he spent 16.3 hours on the matter, including 6.2 hours on the fee motion and related memoranda, and requested a $400 hourly rate.
Attorney’s Fee Analysis
The court used the lodestar method, which calculates fees by multiplying a reasonable hourly rate by a reasonable number of hours. It considered the time and labor required, the attorney’s experience and skill, and the evidence supporting the requested rate.
The court found that the requested $400 hourly rate was not reasonable for this case. The matter ended before an answer was filed, and the complaint, motion, memorandum, and declaration were largely based on pre-existing template documents. Although Schwiebert had practiced law for more than 20 years, the court found that this particular matter required limited skill, consisting mainly of client communication and submitting a template complaint. The court also found that the supporting declarations and other evidence did not adequately establish that $400 per hour was reasonable for a case of this simplicity.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the claimed hours were excessive. It found that Schwiebert still needed to meet with his client, revise documents, and communicate with opposing counsel. The court therefore found all 16.3 claimed hours reasonable.
Disposition
The court set the reasonable hourly rate at $300. Multiplying that rate by 16.3 hours, it ordered that Meidal was entitled to collect $4,890 in attorney’s fees and directed that judgment be entered accordingly. This was a fee determination under the FDCPA and the accepted offer of judgment; the opinion did not decide the underlying FDCPA allegations.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.