Hashi v. Law Offices of David M. Katz P.C.

Background

Abdimalik Hashi brought this action against the Law Offices of David M. Katz P.C., a law firm operating in New York, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. On February 1, 2021, Hashi accepted the defendant’s offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. The agreed judgment awarded Hashi $1,001 in FDCPA damages, along with costs and attorney’s fees in an amount agreed upon by counsel or determined by the court.

The parties could not agree on attorney’s fees, so Hashi filed the motion addressed in this order. Hashi initially sought $17,545, based on 31.9 hours of work at an hourly rate of $550. The defendant’s owner, David Katz, submitted a letter asserting that Hashi’s attorney had overstated the time spent on the matter. Katz pointed to a January 4, 2021 telephone call that Hashi’s attorney billed as 0.4 hours, while Katz said his call logs showed that the call lasted 16 minutes.

The court noted that no attorney had entered an appearance for the defendant, that Katz was not admitted to practice before the court and had not sought permission to appear temporarily, and that his letter was untimely. The court nevertheless considered the letter as the defendant’s response. Hashi’s attorney submitted a declaration explaining his timekeeping software and stating that the 31.9-hour total was accurate. He also stated that he spent an additional 2.7 hours responding to Katz’s letter, for a total of 34.6 hours.

Court’s analysis

The FDCPA permits a successful plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The court applied the lodestar method, which calculates a fee by multiplying the reasonable hours worked by a reasonable hourly rate. In assessing reasonableness, courts consider factors including the time required, the difficulty of the legal issues, the amount involved, the result obtained, and the attorney’s experience. The court identified the degree of success as the most important factor.

The court found that the $550 hourly rate was reasonable. It noted that Hashi’s attorney obtained an offer of judgment exceeding the FDCPA’s maximum statutory damages, which the court characterized as complete success for Hashi. The court also considered the attorney’s nearly 25 years of FDCPA litigation experience, his teaching of federal consumer law at Mitchell Hamline School of Law since 2003, his litigation experience in the area, and declarations from local consumer-law attorneys supporting the rate. The court also noted that it had found a lower rate of $425 reasonable for the same attorney in an FDCPA case nine years earlier.

The court reviewed the time records and found that 34.6 hours were reasonably expended. It rejected the defendant’s objection concerning the 16-minute telephone call, explaining that billable time may include preparation before a call and work related to the call afterward.

Disposition

The court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees. It ordered the defendant to pay Hashi $19,030 in reasonable attorney’s fees and $540 in costs, with payment due within 30 days after the order was entered.