Young v Diversified Consultants Debt Collections Minnesota FDCPA - 13-5

8/13/2019 Young v Diversified Consultants Debt Collections Minnesota FDCPA - 13-5

1/16

lodetar ethod to the e requet

Perhap the ot obvou derence that Plant have not recovered a nd f one

owhch ndvdual cla eber wl be awarded daage Rather, each ca eber wll

have to ll out a ca r to ecure the rght to receve to ee credt report d two ee credt

core Therere, th r o the tpcal coon nd cae where each ndval ca

eber enttled to a porton of a up-u pad b a dendant Addtonall, an attoe' e

pad to cla counel wl not coe o an pool of nd created (a none ext), but rther wll

be pad eparatel b Feet

Furtherore, the benet to the cla pl do not end theelve to an prece

eaureent he Pant' expert, Evan Hendrck, etate the vaue of two ee credt

report and two ee credt core to be $2,797,50060, he ao recognze that the Crt could

deterne that varou ctor dctate that r purpoe of cla valuatn, the two credt reort onl

retan a porton of ther arket vaue " (Pl ' Expert tne Report at 5.) ne uch tor the

recentl enacted aendent to the FCRA, whch b Septeber 1, 005 wl entte al ercan

to oe ee cop o ter credt report o each of the tree ajor credt reportng agenc (I. at

6) Thee aendent decreae the vaue of the etteent

The ettleent provde other benet to e cla tat prove even re dcut t quant

than the ee credt report and ee credt core Feet ha agreed to te a reaonable efrt to

enure that t cope wth te requreent of the FC b not akng requet r cret report

lthough not dpotve of the ue, the FCR contan a ehftng provn, whcnoral lead cour to ue the odetar ethod See General Mtrs 55 F d at 821 (Courtgeneral regard the odetar ethod a the apprate ethod n tatutor e hftgcae")

25


2/16

of peron wo have declared bankrptcy unle t ha a perble purpoe under the FC to do

o." (Id) The Cort conc wth Hendrck opnon tat th provon of the ettleent wll

protect conuer prvacy by caung Dendant to enure that t doe not ndcrnatel pull te

credt report of cutoer or ex-cutoer who led baruptcy " (Id at 15) Th canl a

valuable pece of the ettleent and an portant conceon on the part of Fleet, yet e Court

ply caot place a dollar aount on that conceon

The ae te r other benet that Hendrck cte: educaton of the cla ere

great value n nrng cla eber that they are enttled to lea the naton coaned

ther credt report and credt core. It alo portant tat cla eber are noted hat ter

credt naton wa pobly perbly acceed. Hopelly, th tgaton ll e

conuer awarene of prvacy and credt ue and therere rce bankng nttton to eet

hgher tandard of onety, ntegrty nd cutoer ervce

Furtherore, cla acton were degned n pa to addre exactly the tpe o ocetal

grevance at ue n th cae Counel ght nd telf reluctt to brng ocally beneal cla

acton ltgato oud e award provde nucule copenaton baed on the etho appled

by dtrct court See Saunders 2002 WL 149774 at *15.

For all of the above reaon, the Court wll ue t dcreton and apply the lodetr ethod

of calculatng attoey e

C The Lodstar

1 alculating the Ldestar r Francis Mailman P.. s Attrne and Sta

e . Franc eek $9,88400 baed on 15.2 our worked at a rate of $2950 an hour.

(Franc tty Fee Del 6, attached a pp 1 to Mot r tty Fee) Mark D alan

26


3/16

seeks $914500 based on 10 ours orked also at a rate of $29500 an our I ot t toes

ave been certied to act as class counsel on a number of matters pening bot in th aste

District of Pennslvania and oter dera courts (Mot r tt's' Fees App 1 x D (iorapies

of Francis & Mailman)) ot possess signicant skill and experience in consumer clas action

itigation and courts in tis district ave approved similar ourl rates r tem See Orlof 2004

WL 87069 at*7 (approving rates of $17000 $2500 an our r Francis & Mailman att oes);

Bnett 200 WL 21658267 at *8 (approving $22500 an our r Francis & Maiman)

ssociates Jon Soumilas and icael Szmborski orked 586 ours and ours

respectivel and bot request a billing rte of $22500 an our (Franci Att's' Fees l 6)

Aditionall the r as provided records soing 457 ours of ork one b paralegs biing

at a rate of $9500 an our I

Te Court as care revieed te detaied bis submitted on beaf of the attoes and

paralegals orking at Francis & ailman PC and nds tat te our rates sout d time

expended are fir and reasonable Te attoes and sta of Francis & Mailman ave ben deepl

invoved in tis itigation as r back as te investigator pase even bere te i of te

Complaint Counsel ave drafted motions and settlement papers conducte research presnted oral

argument and taken on te added responsibilit of acting as liaison counse and primary c ontact r

te class (Francis tt's' Fees Del 2 Mot r Att's' Fees pp 1 x ) Accorngl te

attoes of Francis & Maiman ave met teir burden of establising te reasonablenes of teir

es and te Court caculates teir odestar at $678800

6 Inclued it teir submission is telve ours of anticipated time relate to tpreparation and attendance at te iess earing securing te expert itness aavit ndconsuting it te expert itness The Court nds tat tese items are aso reasonable

27


4/16

acuatin the Lestar r Dnvan Seares, LL Attrney ta

avid Seares seek $54448.00 bsed on 131.2 hours worked t a rate of $415 .0 a hour;

ichel onovan eeks $7700.00 based on 17.5 hours worked at a rte of $440.00 an our; and

Christian Koeer eek $405.00 aed on 3.0 hours worked at a rate of $135.00 an hour (Seare

e. 5 attached as App. 2 to Mot. r Att'y' Fee. )

Seare wo did the vat maority of te work on behaf of hi rm was admited to the

practice of aw in 175 ad i an abe eperenced and reputabe cass action itigtor. See

Sauners 2002 W 147374 at*15. onova is aso n eperienced cass action itigat ho has

been certied s cass couse in a umber of cses in this ditrict. (Seares e. Ex C (attoey

biographies and quaicatins).) Furthermore houry rates imiar to thoe sought in this as have

been warded by courts i thi district. Se, e, Or 2004 WL 87061 t *7 (approvin $30.00

n hour r onovan Seares awyers); Bnett 2003 WL 21658267 at *8 (pproving $0.00 an

hour r Seares and $125.00 an hour r oeer); Sauners 2002 WL 147374 at *1 (nding

$350.00 an hour r Seares; $30.00 an hour r oovan; and $105.00 an hour r Koer ir ad

reasoabe); see as Seares e. 4 (coecting cases).

The attoey ad sta at onovan Seres particury Seares hve been timatey

invoved in a aspects of this cae incuding invetigating the ctua bckground o the case

reserching numerous ega iues drafting motion ad participating in the ppea that eet took

om this Court's ruig denyig Feet's motion to compe arbitration. (Seares A & E

(biing records r onovan Seares).) With the eception of ur entries und on oovan'

28


5/16

timeshet, the Court nd that the hourly ate and time xpnded are r and reanble

oweve, the Court must xclud the llwing entrie:

Dat Hours Rate

Marc 8, 2004 1 $44000

Marc 10, 2004 1 $44000

pril 21, 2004 5 $44000

June 10, 2004 $44000

Valu

$44000

$44000

$220000

$44000

Descrip ionC l l s i t Fleet/Columba clinte: potntal cse

Mre reearcanalsion potntial cse

o k o n cseinvestige ct,tc

Email re: coplint,etc

(Serles Del Ex A) Ther i inufcient nrmtion in the entrie r tis Court to trin

if the hur climed r unreaonable r the wor pered o if k s ee ecsy See

Re v. Dearciprete 892 F2d 1177, 1190 (3d Cir 1990) Th to Mach entries rarding a

pteti c occurred ove a month after ti cae was led and th June entry regrding n e-ail

about the Complant occued mo th ur months aftr t ling ithut ditional

inrmtion, the Court i left to peculate on how thes hour er spnt The April 21, 24 entr,

wok n new case/investigat cts, etc," also lacks ubstanc and cannot serve as te bi r e

ccoringly, thee eight hou, totaling $3,52000, will be subtrcted om the Court's ard Th

adjusted lodestar r the attoey and sta t Donovan and Sarls is $59,03300

Included with thi ubission is ten hour of anticpated ti r Serles relatd tocarryig out the ters of t ttlement, including contacts ith class ember The Cor ndstat thee items re alo raonable

29


6/16

acuatin the Ldetar r has J Lyns and the num uticeenter

omas J. Lons sks $39515.00 basd on 1129 ours workd at an our rat o

$350.00. (omas J. Lons i 4 attacd as pp. 3 to Mot. r tts Fs.) omas J Lons

as bn practicing aw r rt ars and has bn involvd i ovr 250 consumr cas. (I i!

10-11 & Ex. 1) omas J. Lons Jr. and ndra Wbr bot of t Consumr Justic r sk

$3013.00 basd on 135.46 ours work at an our ra of $300.00 r Lons Jr. a $5.00

r Wbr. (homas J. Lons Jr. D. i & Ex. 2 (nsur Justic Cnr biing cords)

attacd as pp. 4 to Mot. r tts Fs.) Lons Jr. as ovr tn ars of xprin wit a

spcial xprtis in FC a. (Mot. r ts Fs App. 4 Ex. 1 (Curricuum Via o omas

J. Lons Jr.).) as bn crtid as cass couns in numrous cass and as ld ovr 00 cass

against consumr rporting agncis d crditors. d) In igt of vidnc prsntd h Court

concluds at f applications of omas J. Lons oma J. Lons k ad da b a

rasonab. ir odsar is tus $4528.0.

sum disrgarding t igt insucint substantiv ours oggd b Donoa cass

couns as documnd 666.26 ours dvotd to tis cas. Basd on t ours submitt and t

rasonab ourl rats ord b t attos tot odstar is $200949.00.

D. Lodestar ultiplier

lodstar mutipir aim to account r t contingnt natur or risk invvd in a

particuar cas and th quait of t attos work. Rite Aid Sec Liti 396 F.3d 305-06.

Courts appl a mutipir to t odstar caculation r an numbr orasons .g. to rt t risk

o nocovr; o act as an inctiv r th bringing o sociall bncial itigation; or o rward

30


7/16

counl r an xcptional rult Pruentia 148 F3d at 340

Th Suprm Court ha hld that a contingncy mulitplir bad on ri i imprmsibl in

tatutory -hifting ca i Burintn v Daue 505 US 557 (199) Nonthl, th

Third Circuit ha xplcitly rcognizd that multiplr ranging om on to ur ar untly

aardd n common nd ca mployig th lodtar mthod Pruentia 48 F 3d at 341; see

as Stp Shp 2005 L 11396, at* 16 Th ca l to ll atly thn th tattory -

hifting ralm that ould ma application of Daue traightrard and bar a rk-bad

contingncy multiplir Yt thi ttlmnt alo ad clar chactrization a a comn nd

ca intad, thi i a hbrid ttlmnt that d clar labl and rquir th xrc of th

Court' dscrtion Th u of multiplir ma till b allod in common nd ca n cro-

chcing againt a lodtar, or in a hybrid ca " iccarne004 L 296693, at *5 ee as

Btus 203 F3d at 243-44 (3d Cir 2000) (ring to dcid hthr Dauebar contngcy-ri

mutplirs n common nd or hybrid cas) Accordingly, th Court nd that a 15 mtplir i

arrantd n thi ca Th tp of litgation undrtan by cla counl hr, hich ddr

important conumr conc that ould lly b ignord thout uch cla action lait, mut

b ncuragd Applying th lodtar multiplir to th lodtar of $200,94900, th Co t arr

at a total of $30,42350 That hall b thi Court's aard of attorny'

E. Prcntag of Rcovry Cross-Chck

gdl of th mthod chon, [th Third Circuit ha] uggtd it i nibl r a court

Although t that cla counl ill rci mayb ignicantly higr tha thaard gn to th cla, no pr rl rbid uch an outcom See Osan 3 F Sup d at444 (Although th aard of attoy' xcd th aard to th cla, thr i n l oftrict proportonality tat counl th cor t dcras attorn' in ordr to matcuccl judgmnt or ttlmnt aard"); see a Bnett003 L 1658267, at *

31


8/16

to us a scond mtod of f approval to cross-cck its initial calculation" Rite Aid Sc Liti

396 3d at 294 T ourt will trr conduct t prcntag-ofrcovr analysis as cross

cck, mindl tat tis mtod will b r om prct givn t circumstancs of tis cse

As prviously notd, district courts in tis circuit av bn dirctd to mplo sven ctors

in dtrmining t rasonablnss of a ptition wn calculating t prcntagofecov

tod Tos fctors ar: (1) t siz of t nd cratd and t nubr of prsons benettd

(2) t prsnc or absnc of substantial objctions b mmbrs of t class to t sttlment trs

and/or t s rqustd b counsl (3) t skill and cinc of t attos involv 4) t

complxity and duration of t litigation () t risk of nonpamnt (6 t amount of time d evotd

to t cas b plaintis' counsl and (7) t awards in similar cass Nichs v SitKine

Beecham 01 Civ A No 006222, 200 WL 90616, at *20 ED Pa Apr 22 200) (citin

Gunter 23 3d at 19 n 1 )

I he Size the Fund reated the Number Persns Bentted an wards

in Simiar ases

T most straigtrward calculation of t siz of t fd is to multiply t mat valu

of t crdit rports and crdit scors to wic t class brs will b ntitld by t nbr of

individuals in t class To kp t calculations on t consrvativ sid t Court wil discount

t valu of on crdit rport bcaus all Amricans will soon b ntitld to rciv on e crdit

rport Accordingl, t valu of two crdit scors and on crdit rport all class

mmbrs is $1,937,42760 If t $1,00000 in incnti awards and $6,00000 in admiistration

s paid by lt ar addd to tat total, t valu of t sttlnt is $2,017,427 60 sing tis

To rain on t consrvativ id, t Court will not considr t $0,00000 presdonation or t nonconoic bnts obtaind r t class in valuing t sttlmnt nd "

32


9/16

f

gre an aard of $30142350 in counsel es amounts to 1494 % of the nd" creat y the

settlement

One court has noted that the e aards have ranged om nineteen percent to rty-ve

percent of the settleent nd" Geneal Mts 55 F 3d at 822 (citations omitted) In ition

class counsel has cited sixteen cases in hich courts have aarded attoeys' es beten 145%

and 40% of the settement nd (Mot r tt'ys' Fees at 12) ere aarding 149% of te nd"

recovered is certainly in ine ith the aards made in other cases in tis distrct

Objectins t the Settlement Tems and/ the Fees Requested by Cnsel

The absence of large numbers of objections mitigates against reucing e aars " Jn e

enant 232 F Supp 2d 327 337 (3d Cir 2002) (citations oitted) There have been no ojections

to either the settlement agreement or the es requested by counsel and ony seventy class ebers

have exercised their opt-out rights This ctor therere eighs in vor of approving es in the

amont of $30142350

Te Skill and Eciency te Atteys Invlved, the mplxi andDuatin the Litigatin an the Amunt Time evte t th se byPlaint' unsel

s noted during the Court's discussion of the lodestar calculation class consel are

experienced and skilled attoes ell-versed in the legal issues bere this Court Furermore

settlement as reached t a stage early enough in the proceedings that signicant egal xenses

ere avoide Finally even subtracting the hours r hich insucient spport exists upn hich

to aard attorneys es class counsel has devoted total of 66626 hors to this itigaton The

Cort is aare of the contradiction und in rearding class counsel r the efcient us of tie

hile also rearding class counsel r the large number of hours orked The Court hoeer nds

33


10/16

36

a he nbr of hours dvo o case in is eary sages sav a c argr nbr of hors

a ceraiy oud have rsd ad e paris no seed ir ierncs Terre his cor

aso eis in vor of appving e appicaion r aoeys' s

Te Risk Nnpaymen

Wen a dendan is on h verge of insovency or acks nncubered asss his cor

ighs in vor of h e appicaion O 225 FRD a 152 Tere is noing in he recor a

indicaes Fee is in poor ncia condiion Therere here is no risk of nonpaen ad is

cor wigs agains approving h e appicaion

ncusin

Wighed ogehr hs cors suppor aarding cass couns he buk of heir reqesd

es undr h percenageofrcovry eod Accordingy e our nds a e prceaof

rcoery crosscheck suppors h nmbr rached appying odesar eod hich i ony

sighy or hn nu cass counse sough

F Costs

Finay cass couns sek $437702 in coss s reibrseen r oofpoce coss

rasonaby incurred in condcing is iigaion This reques r coss incuds: 1) ing es; 2)

eper consuing; 3) eepon and chargs; 4) copying chargs; 5) coper assise resarch;

6) rave odging and od; an 7) aiing carges (Francis 'ys' Fees De Ex C (sking

$248020 in coss); Sears De E B (seking $75828 in coss); Thoas J Lyons A A

(seekig $109902 in xpnss); Toas J Lyons Jr De (seking $3952 in coss))

T seeen agrn provides a Painis ay appy r an aard of aoey' es

and reibrsen of ouofpock penss no in ecess of $32000000 and a Fe i no

34


11/16


12/16

IN THE UTED STATES DISTRICT CORT

FOR THE EATERN DISTICT F PENNSYLVANIA

DWAINE PERRY, BENITA PERRYand CNDICE K BIE, on behalf ofthemselves and al oters

similarly situated,

Plaintis,

v

FLEETBOTON FINANCIL CORP,

d/b/a F LEET CEDIT CARD

SERVICES,Defendant

CIVIL ACTION

No 04-0507

ORDER

D NO W, his 28 of June 2005, upon onsidraion of ainis Moion r Fina

pproa of Cass ion Sn and ward o Rrsnai ainis (omn o 32),

ainifs Moion r ward of oys Fs and Reimbursmn of Expnss oumen No

33), owing a iss haring on May 31, 2005, an r h sad abo reasons, i is hreby

O_DEED ha:

1 This aion saiss h appiab prrequisis r ass aion ramn ndr

Fd R Ci 23(a) and (b) Th ass as dnd in he Smn mn (h Css) is so

numrus ha joinder of a mmbrs is no praiab, hr are qusions of aw and mmon

o h Css, h aims of h Cass Rrsnais ar ypia of h aims of h Cass, and h

Cass Rprsnais wi iry and adquay pro he inrss of h Cass Qusins of aw

and f ommon o h mmbrs of h Cass prdomina or any qusions af ing ony

indiiua mmbrs, and a ass aion is suprior o oher aaiab os r h ir and e in

adjudiaion of h onrorsy


13/16

2 Notic to t Ca quid by 23( ) of t da Ru of Cii Pocdu

a bn poidd in accodanc it t Cot' Piminay Appoa Od datd buay 22,

005, and uc Notic by mai and pubication a bn gin in an aduat and ucint mann;

contitut t bt notic pactica und t cicumtanc; and ati u 23() and d

poc.

3 T Sttmnt Agmnt wa ad at a a ut of am'ngt ngotition

conductd in good it by coun t pati, and i uppotd by t ca pntti

4 T ttmnt a t t in t Sttmnt Agmnt i i, aonab nd

aduat to t mmb of t Ca in igt of t copxity, xpn and duation of itigation

and t ik inod in tabiig iabiity, damag and in maintaining t ca action toug

tia and appa

5 if poidd und t Sttmnt Agmnt contitut i au gin in

xcang t a of t Sttd Caim againt t Rd Pati, a to tm

dnd bo

6 T pon itd on xibit A to Painti Motion ina Ca Sttmnt

a aidy xcudd m om t Ca in accodanc wit t poiions of t

Piminay Appoa Od

7 T pati nd ac Ca mmb a iocaby ubmittd to t xci

juidiction of ti Cout any uit, action, pocding o diput aiing out of t Sttmnt

Agmnt

8. It i in t bt intt of t pati and t Ca mmb and conitnt wit

pincip of judicia conomy tat any diput btwn any Ca mmb (incuding any diput

2


14/16

a to eter any peron i a Cla eber) and any Releaed Party i in any ay relate to te

appliability of te Settlement Agreeent or ti Final Judgent and Order of Diial ould be

preented exluively to thi Cour r reolution by ti ourt.

T S THEEFE RDEED, ADDGED AND DECEED HAT:

A. Ti ation i nally ertied a a la ation againt Fleet on bealf of a

Settleent Cla dened a llo

All peron o ad a Fleet redit ard aount beteen February 4 2002 andFebrary 11 2005 oe redit report ere aeed or revieed by Fleet after te

aount a loed or anelled and after te indebtedne a diarged inbarpty.

B Te Settlement Agreeent i nally approved puruant to Rule 23(e) of te Federal

Rule of Civil Proedure a ir reaonable and adequate and in te bet interet of te Cla and

te partie are direted to onuate te Settleent Agreeent in aordane it it term a

odied by i Cout

C. Fleet all ae a $5000000 cy onation to te Conumer Barupty

itane Projet and the Conuer Credit Couneling Serie of Delaare Valley a oon a

pratiable after te Eetive Date of te ettleent. Ea entity al reeive $25000.00. opie

of te tranittal letter all be provided to te Court no later tan ve day after te onatio are

ade.

D. Ti ation i ereby iied on te merit it prejudie and itout ot.

E For puoe of i Final Judgent and rder of Diial:

(i) Settled lai" ean any nd all laim tat ere aered or tat ouldave been aerted in te ation ariing om Fleet alleged iprper or ipermiibleae of redit report.

3


15/16

(ii) Rlad Pai" an FltBoton Financial Cop., Flt Cdit CadSvic, L.P., and thi ptiv pant, aliate, ubidiai, diviion, pdceo,ucco, pntativ, aign, pnt and o, dicto, plo,

hahold, in, atto and agnt.

F. Th Sttld Clai a hb copomid, ttld, lad, dichagd an

diid on th mit and with pjudi b vitu of th poding hin and thi inal

Judgmnt d Od of imial.

G Cla memb and i hi, xuto, adnitato, uo nd ai

a hb panntl bad and njoind o inti tuting, concing, pocuting o contiuing

to pocut, ith ditl o inditl, an Sttld Clm againt an of th Rlad Ptie in

an u.

ithout acting th nait of thi judgmnt, th Cou hb v and

tain juidition ov thi ttlnt, including th adminitation and conumation of th

lmn. n addition, wiho ag h alit of thi judgnt, th Cout tain xcliv

juidiction of, and Flet and ach b of th Cla a hb dd to hav ubittd

ivocabl to th xluiv juidiction , an uit, action, pocding o diput aiing out of o

lating to thi Od, the Sttlmnt Agnt o th applicabilit of the Sttlnt Aemnt.

Without liiting th gnealit of th going, an dipt concing th Sttlnt Agmnt,

inluding, but not liited to an uit, action, abiation o oth pocding b a Cla m in

which th poviion of th Sttlnt gnt a aetd a a dn in whol o in pat to an

claim o cau of action o othi aid a an ojection, hall ontitut a uit, atin o

poceding aiing ou of o lating to thi Od Solely pupo of uch uit, action o

pocding, to th llt xtnt poibl und applicabl law, th pti hto and a Cla

4


16/16

brs ar hrby d to hav irrvocaby waivd ad agrd not to assr, b way o otio,

as a ds or othrwis, ay cai or objctio that thy ar ot subjct to th jurisdiction o is

Court, or at this Cort is, i any way, a ipropr vu or iconvnit ru

I Uo cosidration o th appication r ictiv awards to th ad Plaitis,

ach ad Painti is awardd th su o $5,000.00 i rcogitio o th vauabl sric thy

prd r ad o bha o th Cass

J Paitis cous is awardd s and rimbrst o xpnss i th tota

aount o$305,80052 as st rth in th Court's oradm and Ordr, which shal b submittd

to Liaiso Cousl Jams A Francis o th Francis ad aia, PC

K Liiso Cous sha b authorizd ad dirctd to alocat ad distribut th s

and xpss aog Cass Cous in accordac with th Court's ordu and Ordr

L Al Cass Cous sha b subjct to th cotiuing jurisdiction o th Court i

conctio with ts award o attoys' s and ribursmt o xpss

Berle M. Schller, .

5

Young v Diversified Consultants Debt Collections Minnesota FDCPA - 13-5

Documents

Transcript of Young v Diversified Consultants Debt Collections Minnesota FDCPA - 13-5