Consumer Protection: Court reduces attorney’s rate from $340 to $300

Where an attorney who successfully represented a woman on her consumer claim sought to recover attorney’s fees at $340 per hour, the rate was reduced to $300 per hour, which was the prevailing market rate in comparable cases.

Background

Adrianna Shelton initiated this action against Cody Marshall d/b/a C&M Towing and Recovery and Trader Ricks LLC for their repossession of Shelton’s car at her home-over Shelton’s repeated objections and despite a written agreement with Trader Ricks establishing that Shelton was current on her car payments.

The court previously granted Shelton’s motion for default judgment as to all claims and awarded $39,423.60 in damages, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs to be determined. Shelton now seeks attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $13,022 and $117.50, respectively. To date, defendants have still not appeared in this matter or responded to Shelton’s motion.

Rate

Shelton is represented in this lawsuit by Jeremy White, a member of the Virginia bar with approximately 20 years of experience and admissions to six state and federal courts in Virginia. Shelton submitted a declaration from Grant Penrod, a civil litigation attorney who has been practicing in Harrisonburg, Virginia, since 2008, to attest to the reasonableness of White’s rate.

Penrod testified that, in his experience, rates for an experienced attorney for federal actions in Harrisonburg, Virginia, “range from $300-$400 an hour, with most attorneys charging at the upper end of that range.” He adds that the current hourly rate for partners at his own firm, including himself, is $370 per hour. He further stated that he has consulted with White on several consumer law cases over the course of more than 15 years and, in his opinion, White’s hourly rate of $340 is reasonable.

Several cases from this district have awarded fees for partner-level attorneys at a rate above $340. However, none of the cases that Shelton cites in favor of a higher rate involve issues of consumer law. This is important because the prevailing market rate should be assessed based on fees received in “in comparable cases.” Just last year, the court awarded attorney’s fees at a rate of $300 where the plaintiff secured a default judgment against a car dealership for violating the Truth in Lending Act. Accordingly, the court finds that the reasonable hourly rate for White’s services in this case is $300.

Time

The court must also assess the reasonableness of the number of hours that Shelton’s counsel expended on the lawsuit, which Shelton supports with a detailed billing timesheet from White. White’s timekeeping records appropriately specify how much time was devoted to each task, including when he performed multiple tasks on a single day.

Further, White’s descriptions on the timesheet establish the relevance and value of each task to the case. The timesheet shows that the hours were spent investigating the case, engaging in early attempts at settlement, drafting the complaint and the motion for default judgment, preparing for and attending the default judgment hearing and communicating with Shelton regarding the facts and case strategy.

Though White’s timesheet indicates that he spent 42.6 hours on this litigation, he suggests discounting the total by 10 percent in the “exercise of billing discretion,” bringing the total to 38.3 hours. This total is consistent with prior attorney’s fee awards in this district. Accordingly, the court finds that Shelton has satisfied her burden of establishing the reasonableness of the number of hours billed to this litigation.

Remaining calculations

The court entered default judgment for Shelton on all four of her claims. However, Shelton is entitled to attorney’s fees on only two of them: her FDCPA claim against Marshall and her TILA claim against Trader Ricks. Shelton argues her other two claims have the same “core of facts” as the FDCPA claim and therefore “do not warrant any reduction for the time spent on those claims.” The court agrees.

Finally, given that Shelton and her counsel succeed on all four claims, and avoided the time and expense of fully litigation the action, the court declines to make any adjustment to the lodestar calculation at the degree of success step. The court also awards an additional $117.50 for the paralegal’s time in this action.

Shelton secured default judgment on the TILA claim against Trader Ricks and on the FDCPA claim against Marshall, meaning that Shelton is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs under one claim for each defendant. Accordingly, the court finds that the attorney’s fees and costs should be split evenly between the defendants.

Shelton v. Marshall, Case No. 5:22-cv-042, May 13, 2024. WDVA at Harrisonburg (Urbanski). VLW 024-3-273. 12 pp.