Velez v. DNF Associates LLC

Background

Jasmine Velez brought claims against DNF Associates, LLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and New York General Business Law § 349. She alleged that DNF sent her a letter about a disputed debt even though DNF knew she was represented by counsel in the matter.

After the parties exchanged initial disclosures and engaged in written discovery, Velez accepted DNF’s offer of judgment. The offer provided for $1,001, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and taxable costs incurred in the action. On August 7, 2020, the court entered judgment for Velez under the offer and acceptance.

Velez then requested $15,891 in attorneys’ fees for 57.2 hours of work. DNF argued that some work should have been done by clerical staff, some billing entries were too vague, and some claimed time was excessive or unreasonable. Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part, with a 20% reduction in the requested fees. DNF objected and argued that the reduction should have been at least 50%.

Court’s review

Judge Gregory H. Woods reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation from the magistrate judge anew. DNF did not dispute that Velez was entitled to attorneys’ fees, that her counsel’s hourly rates were reasonable, or that the requested court costs were appropriate. The court therefore found no clear error in those uncontested portions.

Rather than apply an across-the-board percentage reduction, the court reviewed the six pages of billing entries individually. It reduced the hours for 12 entries involving tasks the court found unreasonable or excessive given counsel’s experience with FDCPA cases. It removed four entries labeled only “File review” because they were too vague to permit meaningful review. It also reduced the rates for two administrative tasks that should have been billed at a non-attorney rate.

The court rejected DNF’s argument that about three hours spent preparing the complaint was excessive and stated that descriptions of client correspondence were not improperly vague. The court concluded that most of the claimed hours were reasonable, clearly explained, and billed at an appropriate rate.

Disposition

The court awarded Velez’s counsel $14,619 in attorneys’ fees and $471 in costs, for a total of $15,090. Velez’s motion for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.