Adams v. Oakridge Direct Solutions Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Athena Adams
v. 	Civil No. 17-cv-202-AJ
Oakridge Direct Solutions Corp.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Athena Adams brought suit under the Fair Debt Collect
Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. against
Oakridge Direct Solutions Corporation (“Oakridge”) alleging
claims arising out of communications that Oakridge made to her
in an attempt to collect a debt. 	On August 22, 2017, the Clerk
of Court entered default against Oakridge. 	See doc. no. 9.
Adams moved for default judgment and, on April 3, 2018, the
court issued a Report and Recommendation on Adams’s motion. 	The
court recommended that the district judge award Adams statutory
damages of $1,000 but held in abeyance its recommendation on
Adams’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs “until counsel
submits ‘contemporaneous time and billing records, suitably
detailed, and information [concerning] the law firm’s standard
billing rates.’” 	Doc. no. 12 at 10 (quoting Hutchinson ex rel.
Julien v. Patrick, 636 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2011)). 	On May 1,
2018, the district judge approved the Report and Recommendation.
See doc. no. 13.
Case 1:17-cv-00202-AJ Document 15 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 6

2
On May 3, 2018, Adams filed her supplemental request for
attorneys’ fees. 	See doc. no. 14. 	For the reasons that follow,
the court recommends that the district judge award Adams
attorneys’ fees of $4,367.50 and costs in the amount of $470.
Discussion
When the district judge approved the court’s April 3, 2018
Report and Recommendation as to Adams’s claim, Adams became a
prevailing party under the FDCPA. 	See Hunter v. Oasis Financial
Solutions, LLC, No. 10CV724 L(WVG), 2011 WL 1559256 at *1 (S.D.
Cal. Apr. 25, 2011) (“[T]he Court entered default judgment
against Oasis and therefore, plaintiff is the prevailing party
for purposes of the assessment of attorney’s fees under the
FDCPA.”). 	Under the FDCPA, a prevailing party is entitled to
“the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorneys’
fees as determined by the court.” 	French v. Corp. Receivables,
Inc., 489 F.3d 402, 403 (1st Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and
ellipsis omitted) (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3)).
An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees is typically
calculated by the lodestar method in which the court multiplies
the hours productively spent by a reasonable hourly rate.
Spooner v. EEN, Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 67-68 (1st Cir. 2011).
“‘Reasonable hourly rates will vary depending on the nature of
the work, the locality in which it is performed, the
Case 1:17-cv-00202-AJ Document 15 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 6

3
qualifications of the lawyers, and other criteria.’”
Hutchinson, 636 F.3d at 16 (quoting United States v. One Star
Class Sloop Sailboat, 546 F.3d 26, 38 (1st Cir. 2008)). 	The
determination of what constitutes a “reasonable” fee is left to
the court’s discretion. 	de Jesus v. Banco Popular de P.R., 918
F.2d 232, 233-34 (1st Cir. 1990).
The party seeking a fee award bears the burden of producing
materials to support the request. 	Hutchinson, 636 F.3d at 13.
“Appropriate supporting documentation includes counsel’s
contemporaneous time and billing records and information
establishing the usual and customary rates in the marketplace
for comparably credentialed counsel.” 	Spooner, 644 F.3d at 68;
see also Bogan v. City of Boston, 489 F.3d 417 (1st Cir. 2007).
In her motion for default judgment, Adams sought an award
of $3,962.50 in attorneys’ fees and $470 in costs. 	Her counsel
submitted a sworn affidavit in support of that request. 	See
doc. no. 11-1. 	The court determined that the affidavit failed
to explain why the billable rate for Adams’s lead counsel, who
had previously submitted requests for and to whom the court had
awarded attorneys’ fees, had increased by $30 per hour over the
rate approved in previous cases. 	See doc. no. 12 at 9-10. 	The
court also found the affidavit lacking in that it did not
identify which of the 14.5 total hours billed were attributable
to attorney work versus work done by law firm staff. 	The court
Case 1:17-cv-00202-AJ Document 15 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 6

4
therefore held in abeyance its recommendation as to Adams’s
request for attorneys’ fees and costs and directed Adams to
supplement her request.
In her supplement, Adams seeks $4,637.50 in attorneys’ fees
and $470 in costs, the increase accounting for the additional
time spent on preparing the supplement. 	See doc. no. 14 at 3.
Adams included as an exhibit to her supplement an invoice that
provides a list of billing entries. 	See doc. no. 14-1. 	This
list details how her counsel arrived at the 21.5 billable hours
devoted to the case. 	This document sufficiently identifies the
hours spent on attorney work versus the work done by law firm
staff.
Adams’s supplement, however, fails to provide information
or documentation explaining why her lead attorney’s billable
rate has increased by $30 per hour. 	For example, Adams does not
provide proof in the form of invoices from other cases showing
the actual billing rate for comparable work; fees her attorney
could have obtained by taking other cases in lieu of the current
case; or an affidavit from another attorney who handles similar
matters in a similar location or studies showing that the $30
increase per hour is reasonable in the current legal market.
See Edge v. Norfolk Fin. Corp., No. Civ.A. 04-12134-DPW, 2005 WL
2323193, at *9 (D. Mass. Aug. 29, 2005); Silva v. Nat’l Telewire
Corp., No. 99-219-JD, 2001 WL 1609387, at *7-8 (D.N.H. Dec. 12,
Case 1:17-cv-00202-AJ Document 15 Filed 08/29/18 Page 4 of 6

5
2001). 	Lacking any such evidence, the court finds Adams’s
counsel’s arguments for his fee increase unpersuasive.
In the past, this court has awarded Adams’s lead counsel
fees at the rate of $295 per hour for his work. 	See, e.g.,
Mailhot v. Direct Recovery Servs., LLC, No. 16-cv-43-JL, 2017
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106046, at *14-15 (D.N.H. May 10, 2017);
Forcier v. Creditors Specialty Serv., Inc., No. 13-cv-444-LM,
2014 WL 6473043, at *14 (D.N.H. Nov. 17, 2014). 	The court
recommends that the $295 rate also apply in this case. 	Applying
that rate to the invoice included with Adams’s supplement
results in an award of attorneys’ fees of $4,367.50 and costs in
the amount of $470.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court recommends that the
district judge award plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs in the
amount of $4,837.50.
Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be
filed within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. See Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The fourteen day period may be extended
upon motion. Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. See Santos-Santos v.
Case 1:17-cv-00202-AJ Document 15 Filed 08/29/18 Page 5 of 6

6
Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b)(2).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
August 29, 2018
cc: 	John F. Skinner, III, Esq.
Case 1:17-cv-00202-AJ Document 15 Filed 08/29/18 Page 6 of 6