9th Circuit Reviews Attorney's Fees Under FDCPA
In Comacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F.3d 973 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit issued a rare published opinion on calculating attorney's fees under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. ("FDCPA"), reversing a district court's award of fees and remanding for a recalculation. The opinion provides significant guidance on how courts are to calculate attorney's fees under the FDCPA.
In Comacho, plaintiff sued defendant Bridgeport in a putative class action alleging violation of the FDCPA. The parties settled the case shortly after the district court certified a statewide class with more than 7,000 members. As part of the settlement, Bridgeport agreed to pay "reasonable and necessary" attorney's fees to be determined by the district court if the parties could not agree (and they could not). The district court awarded plaintiff $77,069.36 of the $167,434.36 in attorney's fees she sought, and plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding: (1) the district court failed to identify the relevant community in awarding fees; (2) the district court failed to address or determine the prevailing market rate in awarding attorney's fees; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by awarding a flat $500 award without calculating the lodestar. Continue Reading...
In Comacho, plaintiff sued defendant Bridgeport in a putative class action alleging violation of the FDCPA. The parties settled the case shortly after the district court certified a statewide class with more than 7,000 members. As part of the settlement, Bridgeport agreed to pay "reasonable and necessary" attorney's fees to be determined by the district court if the parties could not agree (and they could not). The district court awarded plaintiff $77,069.36 of the $167,434.36 in attorney's fees she sought, and plaintiff appealed. The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding: (1) the district court failed to identify the relevant community in awarding fees; (2) the district court failed to address or determine the prevailing market rate in awarding attorney's fees; and (3) the district court abused its discretion by awarding a flat $500 award without calculating the lodestar. Continue Reading...
