Barbara Bowden; Ernest Bowden, Jr. v. Forest River, Inc.; Camping World Rv Sales, LLC

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1832
BARBARA BOWDEN; ERNEST BOWDEN, JR.
Plaintiffs – Appellees,
v.
FOREST RIVER, INC.; CAMPING WORLD RV SALES, LLC,
Defendants – Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:18-cv-01578-CMH-JFA)
Argued: January 26, 2022 Decided: March 4, 2022
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: John Dimitri Papageorge, TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP,
Indianapolis, Indiana, for Appellants. Matthew W.H. Wessler, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC,
Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Donald C. Biggs, TAFT STETTINIUS &
HOLLISTER LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana; Dannel C. Duddy, HARMAN, CLAYTOR,
CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. Amy L. Austin,
Leonard A. Bennett, Newport News, Virginia, Matthew J. Erasuquin, CONSUMER
LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC, Alexandria, Virginia; Ronald L. Burdge, BURDGE

-- 1 of 4 --

2
LAW OFFICE, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 4 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Defendants Forest River, Inc., and Camping World RV Sales, LLC, appeal from the
district court’s award to plaintiffs Barbara Bowden and Ernest Bowden, Jr., of attorneys’
fees and litigation costs, made pursuant to the fee-shifting provision in 15 U.S.C.
§ 2310(d)(2). See Bowden v. Forest River, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01578 (E.D. Va. June 30,
2020), ECF No. 48 (the “Award”).* The underlying litigation involved product liability
claims, pursued in the Eastern District of Virginia, concerning a defective recreational
vehicle. The merits of the lawsuit were settled by the parties, but the matter of fees and
costs was reserved for resolution by the court. The Award consists of $91,935.25 in
attorneys’ fees and $32,856.93 in costs. The defendants have appealed the Award and
present multiple contentions, including challenges to the lawyers’ hourly rates and expert
witness costs. As relief, the defendants seek a vacatur of the Award and a remand for
further proceedings.
We review a district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs for an abuse of
discretion. See Hyatt v. Barnhart, 315 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2002). And our deferential
standard of review has been characterized as “sharply circumscribed . . . because a district
court has close and intimate knowledge of the efforts expended and the value of the services
rendered.” See Grissom v. Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313, 320 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal
* The statutory fee-shifting provision authorizing the Award was enacted as part of
the so-called federal “lemon law,” formally entitled the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of
1975. Pursuant thereto, a prevailing consumer may “recover as part of the judgment a sum
equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees based on
actual time expended) determined by the court.” See 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2).

-- 3 of 4 --

4
quotation marks omitted). Having carefully considered each of the defendants’ appellate
contentions and having evaluated the district court’s thoughtful 15-page Award, the record
on appeal, the appellate briefs, and the oral argument, we are satisfied that there was no
abuse of discretion or reversible error. As a result, we are obliged to affirm the Award.
AFFIRMED

-- 4 of 4 --