Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
HYDE & SWIGARTJoshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)[email protected] S. Connolly, Esq. (SBN: 286650)[email protected] Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101San Diego, CA 92108Telephone: (619) 233-7770Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APCAbbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)[email protected] Fischer Avenue, Unit D1Costa Mesa, CA 92626Telephone: (800) 400-6808Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Attorneys for Dawn Zoerb and the settlement class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Motion and Notice of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs - 1 of 2 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff,v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.,
Defendants.
Case No: 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
Date: April 3, 2017Time: 10:30 A.M.Courtroom: 4B
Judge: Hon. Cynthia Bashant
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.647 Page 1 of 2
TO: ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 3, 2017, before the United States
District Court, Southern District of California, Courtroom 4B, located at 333 West
Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, Plaintiff DAWN ZOERB (“Plaintiff”) will move
this Court for an Order Granting Approval of Plaintiff’s Attorneys’ Fees, and Costs.
This unopposed motion is based upon this notice, the records and papers on
file herein, the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the declarations of
Plaintiff’s counsel, and on such other evidence as may be presented at the hearing
of this motion.
Respectfully submitted, Hyde & Swigart
Date: January 9, 2017 By:/s/ Joshua B. Swigart Joshua B. Swigart Attorneys for Plaintiff, and the settlement class
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Motion and Notice of Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs - 2 of 2 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.648 Page 2 of 2
HYDE & SWIGARTJoshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)[email protected] S. Connolly, Esq. (SBN: 286650)[email protected] Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101San Diego, CA 92108Telephone: (619) 233-7770Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APCAbbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)[email protected] Fischer Avenue, Unit D1Costa Mesa, CA 92626Telephone: (800) 400-6808Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Attorneys for Dawn Zoerb and the settlement class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff,v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.,
Defendants.
Case No: 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS
Date: April 3, 2017Time: 10:30 A.M.Courtroom: 4B
Judge: Hon. Cynthia Bashant
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.649 Page 1 of 29
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. ........................................................................................................Introduction 1
II. ...................................................................Factual and Procedural Background 1
III. ..............................................................................................................Standard 3
IV. ............................................................................................................Argument 4
A. Congress Intended to Encourage Private Enforcement of The FDCPA and
..................................................................................................The RFDCPA 5
B. Public Policy Favors Awarding Attorneys Acting as Private Attorney
.......................................................General Their Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 6
C. The Requested Fee Award is Fair, Reasonable, and Justified by the Results
.........................................................................................................Obtained 8
1. The Requested Fee is Presumptively Reasonable Because it Resulted
..............................................................From Arms-Length Negotiations 8
2. Plaintiff’s Counsel Should be Awarded Fees Pursuant to the Lodestar
.....................................................................................................Formula 9
3. Previously Established Rates are Reasonable and Appropriate for
...................................................................................Plaintiff’s Counsel 13
4. The Award of Attorneys’ Fees is Not Limited by The Amount of
.................................................................................................Damages. 15
5. ............The Settlement Represents an Outstanding Result for the Class 18
D. Plaintiff’s Counsel Are Also Entitled to an Award of Costs and Litigation
..........................Expenses Pursuant to The FDCPA and The Rosenthal Act 19
E. Plaintiff’s Counsel Are Entitled to an Award of Additional Fees and Costs
.............................................................Incurred In Seeking Final Approval 20
V. ........................................................................................................Conclusion 20
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - i - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.650 Page 2 of 29
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Co.,
.........................................................................79 Cal. App. 4th 1127 (2000) 4
American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas
County,
.........................................................278 F. Supp. 2d 1301 (M.D. Fl. 2003) 12
American Petroleum Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency,
........................................................................72 F.3d 907 (D.C. Cir. 1996) 11
Armstrong v. The Rose Law Firm, P.A.,
............................................2002 WL 31050583 (D. Minn., Sept. 5, 2002) 16
Baker v G.C. Servs. Corp.,
..........................................................................677 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1982) 5
Ballen v. City of Redmond,
..........................................................................466 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2006) 4
Bayless v. Iris Leopold Imports, Inc.,
..................................................................659 F. Supp. 942 (D. Ore. 1987) 13
Blum v. Stenson,
...........................................................................465 U.S. 886 (1984) 4, 12, 13
Bouman v. Block,
940 F.2d 1211 (9th ....................................................................... Cir. 1991) 11
Bowers v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company,
............................................................................675 P.2d 193 (Wash. 1983) 7
Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc.,
523 F. 3d 973 (9th .................................................................... Cir. 2008) 7, 14
Christiansburgh Garment Co. v. EEOC,
.......................................................................................434 U.S. 412 (1978) 5
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - ii - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.651 Page 3 of 29
Table Of Authorities
(continued)
City of Riverside v. Rivera,
.......477 U.S. 561, 106 S. Ct. 2686, 91 L. Ed. 2d. 466 (1986) 6, 7, 15, 16, 17
Clark v. City of Los Angeles,
..........................................................................803 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 1986) 4
Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway Contractors, Inc.,
............................................................................53 Cal.App.4th 152 (1997) 4
Davis v. City and County of San Francisco,
976 F.2d 1536 (9th ...................................................................... Cir. 1992) 11
Evans v. Jeff D.,
..........................475 U.S. 717, 106 S. Cot. 1531, 89 L. Ed. 2d. 747 (1986) 16
Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell,
....................................................................688 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2012) 4, 6
Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes,
.............................................................575 S.W.2d 480 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978) 7
Friend v. Klodzieczak,
........................................................................72 F.3d 1368 (9th Cir. 1995) 10
Glendora Community Redevelopment Agency v. Demeter,
.........................................................................155 Cal.App.3d 465 (1984) 10
Gonzales v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC,
660 F.3d 1055 (9th ......................................................................... Cir. 2011) 6
Graziano v. Harrison,
.....................................................................950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991) 6, 16
Grove v. Huffman,
.............................................262 Ill. App. 3d 531, 634 N.E. 2d 1184 (1994) 8
Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada,
........................................................................100 F.3d 691 (9th Cir. 1996) 13
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - iii - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.652 Page 4 of 29
Table Of Authorities
(continued)
Harris v. Marhoefer,
.............................................................................24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994) 4
Hensley v. Eckerhart,
.........................................................................461 U.S. 424 (1983) 4, 8, 9, 17
Hoffman v. Bank of America, N.A.,
............................................................12-cv-00539-JAH-DHB (S.D. Cal.) 14
In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litig.,
.............................2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108195 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008) 8
In re Martinez,
.........................................................266 B.R. 523 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2001) 17
Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes,
............................491 U.S. 754, 109 S. Ct. 2732, 105 L. Ed. 2d. 639 (1989) 9
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A.,
.......................................................................................559 U.S. 573 (2010) 6
Johnson v. Eaton,
..........................................................................80 F.3d 148 (5th Cir. 1996) 16
Johnson v. University College,
....................................................................706 F.2d 1205 (11th Cir. 1983) 11
Jones v. Robert Vest,
.............................2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19026 (E.D. Va. Dec. 27, 2000) 17
Kim v. Fujikawa,
......................................................................871 F.2d 1427 (9th Cir. 1989) 11
Lathem v. Department of Children & Youth Servs.,
......................................................................172 F.3d 786 (11th Cir. 1999) 19
Lemieux v. EZ Lube, Inc. et al.,
.............................................................12-cv-01791-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.) 14
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - iv - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.653 Page 5 of 29
Table Of Authorities
(continued)
Libertad v. Sanchez,
..............................................................134 F. Supp. 2d 218 (D.P.R. 2001) 19
Majcher v. Laurel Motors Co.,
.............................287 Ill.App.3d 719, 680 N.E.2d 416 (Ill. Ct. App. 1997) 7
Margolin v. Regional Planning Com.,
.........................................................................134 Cal.App.3d 999 (1982) 10
Martino v. Denevi,
........................................................................182 Cal.App.3d 553 (1986) 10
Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health v. School Committee of Tewksbury,
...............................................................841 F. Supp. 449 (D. Mass. 1993) 11
McGrath v. County of Nevada,
......................................................................67 F.3d 248 (9th Cir. 1995) 4, 11
McKenzie v. Kennickell,
.................................................................645 F. Supp. 437 (D.D.C. 1986) 11
Muhammed Abdeljalil v. G.E. Capital Retail Bank,
......................................................Case No. 12-CV-02078-JAH-MDD 12, 14
Northcross v. Memphis Bd. of Education,
..................................412 U.S. 427, 93 S. Ct. 2201, 37 L. Ed. 2d. 48 (1973) 9
Oberfelder v. City of Petaluma,
........................................................................2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8635 11
Paul Stemple v. QC Holdings, Inc.,
......................................................................12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG 12, 14
Perez v. Perkiss,
.................................................................842 F. Supp. 883 (D. Del. 1990) 17
Postow v. Oriental Bldg Ass’n,
....................................................................455 F. Supp. 781 (D.D.C. 1978) 5
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - v - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.654 Page 6 of 29
Table Of Authorities
(continued)
Quaration v. Tiffany & Co.,
.........................................................................166 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 1999) 15
Sousa v. Miguel,
........................................................................32 F.3d 1370 (9th Cir. 1994) 19
Student Public Interest Research Group v. AT&T Bell Laboratories,
......................................................................842 F.2d 1436 (3d Cir. 1988) 16
Tolentino v. Friedman,
............................................................46 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 1995) 6, 7, 13, 17
United Nuclear Corp. v. Cannon,
..................................................................564 F. Supp. 581 (D. R. I. 1983) 19
Widrig v. Apfel,
......................................................................140 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 1998) 13
William Mount, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
...............................................No. B260585 (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 10, 2016) 14
Zagorski v. Midwest Billing Services, Inc.,
................................................................128 F.3d 1164 (7th Cir. 1997) 15, 17
Zaw v. Nelnet Business Solutions, Inc.,
.......................................................................13-cv-05788-RS (N. D. Cal.) 14
Statutes
15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. .................................................................................... passim
....................................................................................................15 U.S.C. § 1692(e) 8
.....................................................................................................15 U.S.C. § 1692k 18
........................................................................................15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) 1
.......................................................................................15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) 3, 19
.......................................................................................................28 U.S.C. § 1920 19
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - vi - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.655 Page 7 of 29
Table Of Authorities
(continued)
Statutes
.............................................................................................42 U.S.C. § 1988 9, 13, 15
Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq ............................................................................. passim
............................................................................................Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17 3
.............................................................................Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c) 1, 3, 19
Rules
...............................................................................................Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) 2
...............................................................................................Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) 2
Other
Sen.Rep.No.93-278 ................................................................................................. 5-6
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - vii - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.656 Page 8 of 29
I. Introduction
Plaintiff DAWN ZOERB (“Plaintiff”) hereby submits this memorandum in
support of Plaintiff’s request for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A), and
the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c), in
this action against Defendants National Collegiate Student Loan Trust(s) and the
Law Office of Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. (“Defendants”).
Given the litigation efforts required to obtain Plaintiff’s class action
settlement, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees of $125,000.00 and costs
of $7,377.09 are wholly reasonable and justified in light of the strong settlement
obtained for the class and the actual fees and costs incurred. As this Court is aware,
the Parties agreed to a maximum of $125,000.00 to compensate Plaintiff’s counsel
for attorneys’ fees and a maximum of $7,500.00 in costs, pursuant to the Class
Action Settlement Agreement, preliminarily approved by this court (“Settlement
Agreement”). ECF No. 43-1, 45. To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has incurred
substantially more than $125,000, as explained below and therefore a request of
$125,000 is reasonable. Class Counsel respectfully submits that the requested fees
are fair, were reasonably incurred, consistent with Ninth Circuit authority, and
appropriate given the attorney’s fees awarded in similar cases.
II. Factual and Procedural Background
This consumer class action arises from Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendants
filed state court lawsuits alleging Plaintiff and Class Members entered into written
contracts with Defendant, National Collegiate Student Loan Trust(s), when in fact,
Plaintiff and Class Members did not enter into written contracts with National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust(s). These material misrepresentations were alleged
to have violated 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Procedures Act
(“FDCPA”) and Cal Civ. Code § 1788, et seq., the California Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (the “Rosenthal Act”).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 1 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.657 Page 9 of 29
Plaintiff filed this action on March 3, 2014. See ECF No. 1, Declaration of
Joshua B. Swigart (“Swigart Dec.”) at ¶ 6. Ten (10) similar actions were filed by
Plaintiff’s counsel on behalf of separate Plaintiffs against Defendants based on the
same alleged misrepresentations within state court collection actions.1 Swigart Dec.
at ¶ 7. On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed notices of related cases. ECF. 8; Swigart
Dec. at ¶ 8. This action, along with the ten (10) other similar actions were
reassigned to this Court on April 18, 2014. ECF. No. 11; Swigart Dec. at ¶ 9.
Thereafter, on August 22, 2014, the parties participated in mediation with the
Hon. Herbert B. Hoffman, Ret., at which time, the parties reached a class-wide
settlement, and agreed to consolidate the actions. Swigart Dec. at ¶ 10-11; See ECF.
No. 21, 22. On June 23, 2015, the Court approved the Parties’s request to appoint
the Hon. Herbert B. Hoffman, Ret. as Special Master. Swigart Dec. at ¶ 12; See
ECF. No. 32-33.
On May 24, 2016, after working out the intricate details of the settlement,
the Parties submitted a motion for preliminary approval. See ECF. No. 40; Swigart
Dec. at ¶ 13. This motion sought approval of a class settlement under Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) only, and did not envision notice to the class, as
individual rights were not being released. Swigart Dec. at ¶ 14. However,
subsequently, the Parties agreed that a better solution and settlement would include
notice of the actual consideration to the class and notice of the action consistent
with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Swigart Dec. at ¶ 15.
Consequently, the Parties submitted a revised settlement agreement and motion for
preliminary approval on November 7, 2016. See ECF. No. 43.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 2 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1 In addition to Zoerb, the other 10 class actions are: Sandi Parra, Reynaldo Raquel, and Lisa Alward, Case No. 14-00475 (S.D. Cal.); Madeline Montry and Rebecca Burlingame, Case No. 14-00519 (S.D. Cal.); Joel and Janice Benoit, Case No. 14-00522 (S.D. Cal.); Robin Goret, Case No. 14-00807 (S.D. Cal.); Robin Goret, Case No. 14-00809 (S.D. Cal.); Charlene Baxter, Case No.14-01049 (S.D. Cal.); Lora Mayhugh, Case No. 14-01208 (S.D. Cal.); Laurie Alderman, Case No.14-01210 (S.D. Cal.); Andrew Toney, Case No. 14-01321 (S.D. Cal.), and Tricia Benavente, Case No. 14-01992 (D. Nev.).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.658 Page 10 of 29
Most recently, on November 22, 2016, this Court issued an Order granting
the parties’ Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement. See
ECF No. 45. The Order provisionally certified the Class for settlement purposes,
appointed Kazerouni Law Group, APC and Hyde & Swigart as Class Counsel, and
appointed the named Plaintiff as Class Representative. Id. In addition, the Order
approved directed distribution of notice to Class Members, set the deadline for
Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees, and set the Final Fairness and Approval
Hearing for April 3, 2017 at 10:30 A.M. Id. This motion for attorneys fees and
costs follows.
III. Standard
The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.,
(“FDCPA”) provides that reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs shall be awarded to a
prevailing plaintiff. Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) of the FDCPA states that:
any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of [the FDCPA] with respect to any person is liable to such person… [for] the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court.
In addition, the Rosenthal Act provides that reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs shall be awarded to a prevailing Plaintiff. Specifically, Cal. Civ. Code §
1788.30(c) states that:
[i]n the case of any action to enforce any liability under this title, the prevailing party shall be entitled to costs of the action. Reasonable attorney’s fees, which shall be based on time necessarily expended to enforce the liability, shall be awarded to a prevailing debtor...
The Rosenthal Act incorporates a majority of the Federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) through Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17. As such,
State Courts issuing orders based upon the Rosenthal Act often rely upon FDCPA
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 3 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.659 Page 11 of 29
decisions as well. See Akins v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Co., 79 Cal. App. 4th 1127,
1133 (2000). (“However, the case law on [the FDCPA] attorney fees awards...is
instructive to us on this question”).
IV. ARGUMENT
“Once a party has established that he is entitled to attorneys’ fees, ‘[i]t
remains for the [] court to determine what fee is ‘reasonable.’” Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983). Increases or decreases are warranted in rare
or exceptional cases. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898-901 (1984); Harris v.
Marhoefer, 24 F.3d 16 (9th Cir. 1994); Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 803 F.2d 987,
990-91 (9th Cir. 1986). It is undisputed that Plaintiff is to be paid reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs for this action because Defendant has also agreed to this as
part of the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, Plaintiff’s counsel is entitled to
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as Plaintiff is the prevailing party. Id.; See also
Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1032 (9th Cir. 2012).
“In determining what constitutes a reasonable attorney fee when a contract or
statute provides for such an award, courts should consider the nature of the
litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, and the skill required and success of
the attorney's efforts, his or her learning, age and experience in the particular type
of work demanded, the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the labor and
necessity for skilled legal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time
consumed. [citations omitted].” Contractors Labor Pool, Inc. v. Westway
Contractors, Inc., 53 Cal.App.4th 152, 168 (1997); Ballen v. City of Redmond, 466
F.3d 736, 746 (9th Cir. 2006); and, McGrath v. County of Nevada, 67 F.3d 248, 252
(9th Cir. 1995).
The sole question raised by the current motion is what amount of fees and
costs were reasonably incurred.
///
///
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 4 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.660 Page 12 of 29
A. Congress Intended to Encourage Private Enforcement of The
FDCPA and The RFDCPA
As with other consumer protection statutes, a Plaintiff pursuing claims under
the FDCPA and/or RFDCPA is the “chosen instrument of Congress to vindicate a
policy that Congress considered of the highest priority.” Postow v. Oriental Bldg
Ass’n, 455 F. Supp. 781, 785 (D.D.C. 1978), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other
grounds, 627 F.2d 1370 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (applying to the Truth in Lending Act the
description in Christiansburgh Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 418 (1978)).
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has held that “Congress clearly intended that private
enforcement action would be the primary enforcement tool of the [FDCPA].” Baker
v G.C. Servs. Corp., 677 F.2d 775, 780-81 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, Congress
encouraged private enforcement by providing that attorney’s fees must be awarded
to the successful consumer. The provision for attorney’s fees encourages defendants
to comply with the law, while providing consumers an incentive and the financial
ability to bring suits:
If the 2,000 plus [TILA] suits filed each year represent even the majority of the alleged violations of the Act, the government has the option of creating a substantial bureaucracy to detect and prosecute these numerous alleged violations or to rely on the self-interest of the injured consumer to perform these tasks. The latter option is undoubtedly more cost efficient from the government’s standpoint and is probably more efficient overall, assuming that consumers are in a better position to detect violations committed against them than some government agency would be. Because private litigation is as a supplement, rather than as an alternative to public enforcement of the Act, its encouragement through attorneys’ fees and damages cannot help but affect a fuller compliance with the Act.
Postow, supra, 455 F. Supp. at 785-786.
Civil penalties in a statute are “to provide creditors with a meaningful
incentive to comply with the law without relying on an extensive new bureaucracy.”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 5 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.661 Page 13 of 29
Sen.Rep.No.93-278, p. 14. The incentive redounds to counsel as well. Tolentino v.
Friedman, 46 F.3d 645, 651-652 (7th Cir. 1995) (“‘Unlike most private tort
litigants, [a plaintiff who brings an FDCPA action] seeks to vindicate important…
rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms,’ City of Riverside v. Rivera,
477 U.S. 561, 106 S. Ct. 2686, 91 L. Ed. 2d. 466, (1986), and Congress has
determined that the public as a whole has an interest in the vindication of the
statutory rights.”); Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107, 113-14 (3d Cir. 1991)
(FDCPA “mandates an award of attorney’s fees as a means of fulfilling Congress's
intent that the act should be enforced by debtors acting as private attorney
generals").
B. Public Policy Favors Awarding Attorneys Acting as Private Attorney
General Their Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Federal Courts have long recognized the importance of the fee shifting
provision of the FDCPA, as well as the public policies behind it. The 7th Circuit
affirmed that a separate award for costs and fees is mandatory.
Given the structure of the section, attorney’s fees should not be construed as a special or discretionary remedy; rather, the Act mandates an award of attorney’s fees as a means of fulfilling Congress’s intent that the Act should be enforced by debtors acting as private attorneys general.
Tolentino v. Friedman, 46 F.3d 645, 651-52 (7th Cir. 1995). See also Jerman, 559
U.S. at 525 (“[t]he Act is enforced through…private lawsuits.”); Gonzales v. Arrow
Fin. Servs., LLC, 660 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Congress encouraged
private enforcement by permitting aggrieved individuals to bring suit as private
attorneys general.”); and, Evon v. Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015,
1032 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The reason for mandatory fees is that congress chose a
‘private attorney general’ approach to assume enforcement of the FDCPA.”).
///
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 6 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.662 Page 14 of 29
The United State Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly
reaffirmed Plaintiff’s entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. For
example, the Court in Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc. stated “[t]he FDCPA’s
statutory language makes an award of fees mandatory. The reason for mandatory
fees is that Congress chose a ‘private attorney general’ approach to assume
enforcement of the FDCPA. Camacho v. Bridgeport Financial, Inc., 523 F. 3d 973,
978 (9th Cir. 2008).
The Tolentino court also noted Congress’ specific intent to allow an
individual Plaintiff the ability to pursue an action where the burden of costs and
fees would otherwise economically preclude this type of rights enforcement.
Tolentino at 632 citing City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986). “Unlike
most private tort litigants, a plaintiff who brings an FDCPA action seeks to
vindicate important rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms and
congress has determined that the public as a whole has an interest in the vindication
of the statutory rights.” Id. The Court held similarly in Camacho when it rejected
the district court’s “flat fee” approach, and in its remand for further findings
directed that “the amount of [attorney’s fees] must be determined on the facts of
each case. Camacho at 978.
Moreover, the difficulty in private attorneys general actions, such as the
FDCPA and similar state enacted statutes, is that the potential for recovery is not
clear at the time the litigation is commenced unlike in personal injury actions.
Bowers v. Transamerica Title Insurance Company, 675 P.2d 193, 204 (Wash. 1983).
Additionally, the amount in controversy is usually too small to induce an
attorney to commence litigation on a percentage contingency. Accordingly, “the
purpose of the statutory fee award is to benefit the plaintiff by allowing the plaintiff
to obtain counsel in order to pursue redress for relatively small claims.” Majcher v.
Laurel Motors Co., 287 Ill.App.3d 719, 680 N.E.2d 416 (Ill. Ct. App. 1997); see
also Ford Motor Co. v. Mayes, 575 S.W.2d 480, 488 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978). By
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 7 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.663 Page 15 of 29
providing the private bar with incentive to involve itself in consumer litigation
through fee-shifting, the government is relieved of the costs of protecting
consumers while insuring that consumers may still avail themselves of their
statutory rights. A different result would create a deterrent for the private bar to
pursue an action for which Congress has so emphatically dictated the importance.
“It is the purpose of this subchapter to eliminate abusive debt collection practices
by debt collectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from abusive debt
collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent
State action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.” 15 U.S.C. §
1692(e). This sort of “chilling effect” would counter the purpose of the statute,
which, when coupled with the provision awarding attorneys’ fees “is to encourage
consumers to file actions to vindicate their fights.” Grove v. Huffman, 262 Ill. App.
3d 531, 539, 634 N.E. 2d 1184, 1190 (1994). As a result, public policy dictates that
Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs be paid by Defendant.
C. The Requested Fee Award is Fair, Reasonable, and Justified by
the Results Obtained
1. The Requested Fee is Presumptively Reasonable Because it
Resulted From Arms-Length Negotiations
As the United States Supreme Court has explained: “[a] request for
attorneys’ fees should not result in a second major litigation. Ideally, of course,
litigants will settle the amount of a fee.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437
(1983). While the Court must perform its own evaluation to verify that the
requested fees are reasonable and not the product of collusion, it should give weight
to the judgment of the parties and their counsel where, as here, the fees were agreed
to at arm’s length negotiations only after the parties agreed on the key deal terms.
See, e.g. In re Apple Computer, Inc. Derivative Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
108195, at * 12 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2008).
///
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 8 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.664 Page 16 of 29
Here, Class Counsel negotiated with Defendants to arrive at an agreed-upon
fee amount to which Defendants would not object, and amount that they regarded
as reasonable, subject to Court approval, based upon the benefits achieved for the
Class and applicable legal principles, and did so only after the parties reached an
agreement on the other key terms of the Settlement. Swigart Dec. at ¶ 10. Thus,
under these circumstances, the Court may give weight to the judgment of the parties
and their counsel regarding reasonable attorneys’ fees.
2. Plaintiff’s Counsel Should be Awarded Fees Pursuant to the
Lodestar Formula
The U.S. Supreme Court has explained the calculation for an award of
attorney’s fees:
The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate. The calculation provides an objective basis on which to make an initial estimate of the value of a lawyer’s services.
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433; 103 S. Ct. 1933, 1339; 76 L. Ed. 2d. 40
(1983). See also Thorpe v. Collection Information Bureau, Inc., supra at 1174.
Although this decision, and many others cited hereinafter, arise in the context
of the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Award Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, its criteria is
equally applicable here. “The standards set forth in this opinion are generally
applicable in all cases in which Congress has authorized an award of fees to a
prevailing party.” Id. 103 S. Ct. at 1939, n.7. “We have stated in the past that the
fee-shifting statutes similar language is ‘a strong indication that they are to be
interpreted alike.’” Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S.
754; 109 S. Ct. 2732, 2735 n.2; 105 L. Ed. 2d. 639 (1989) (quoting Northcross v.
Memphis Bd. of Education, 412 U.S. 427, 428; 93 S. Ct. 2201, 2202 37 L. Ed. 2d.
48 (1973)). The multiplication of the reasonable number of hours expended times
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 9 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.665 Page 17 of 29
the reasonable hourly rate is referred to as the “lodestar.” Friend v. Klodzieczak, 72
F.3d 1368, 1389 (9th Cir. 1995).
“Testimony of an attorney as to the number of hours worked on a particular
case is sufficient evidence to support an award of attorney fees, even in the absence
of detailed time records. Glendora Community Redevelopment Agency v. Demeter,
(1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 465, 470-471, 478 [202 Cal.Rptr. 389]; Margolin v.
Regional Planning Com., (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 999, 1006 [185 Cal.Rptr. 145].)”
Martino v. Denevi, 182 Cal.App.3d 553, 559 (1986).
All of Plaintiff’s attorneys assigned to this matter have considerable
experience litigating a variety of consumer rights issue, including actions under the
FDCPA and RFDCPA. [See the respective declarations of Plaintiff’s Counsel filed
concurrently herewith]. To date, Plaintiff’s counsel has expended 373.6 hours
during the course of this litigation, including the ten (10) other related/consolidated
actions. That number consists of the total hours spent by all attorneys. A summary
of those hours is as follows. ATTORNEY: RATE: HOURS: TOTAL:
ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN
PARTNER
$605.00 15.9 $9,619.50
JOSHUA B. SWIGART
PARTNER
$605.00 92.8 $56,144.00
JESSICA DORMAN
ASSOCIATE
$375.00 98.4 $36,900.00
CROSBY CONNOLLY
ASSOCIATE
$325.00 128.5 $41,762.50
DAVID J. MCGLOTHLIN
PARTNER
$450.00 26.3 $11,835.00
LAILA THOMPSON
ASSOCIATE
$350.00 4.7 $1,645.00
DANNY HOREN
ASSOCIATE
$295.00 7 $2,065.00
TOTAL: 373.6 $159,971.00
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 10 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.666 Page 18 of 29
A more detailed summary is attached as Exhibit A to the declarations of
Joshua B. Swigart and Abbas Kazerounian. Additionally, counsel will submit actual
time sheets upon request of the court.
The amount of time expended by Plaintiff’s Counsel is reasonable for this
type of litigation. The Ninth Circuit has stated that “the participation of more than
one attorney does not necessarily constitute an unnecessary duplication of effort.”
Kim v. Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1435 n. 9 (9th Cir. 1989); McGrath v. County of
Nevada, 67 F.3d 248, 255 (9th Cir. 1995). (“Here, the participation of more than
one attorney constituted a reasonable necessity, given the complexity of legal issues
and the breadth of factual evidence involved in this case”); Johnson v. University
College, 706 F.2d 1205, 1108 (11th Cir. 1983) (“An award for time spent by two or
more attorneys is proper as long as it reflects the distinct contribution of each
lawyer to the case and the customary practice of multiple-lawyer litigation”);
McKenzie v. Kennickell, 645 F. Supp. 437 450 (D.D.C. 1986) (allowing
compensation for two attorneys where multiple lawyers appeared at major oral
arguments or hearings).
Furthermore, Courts recognize that “in most instances when associates are
employed to work under the supervision of a partner, there is some duplication of
time in that the associate must report and the partner must review. See, e.g.,
American Petroleum Institute v. Environmental Protection Agency, 72 F.3d 907, 916
(D.C. Cir. 1996); Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health v. School Committee of
Tewksbury, 841 F. Supp. 449, 459 (D. Mass. 1993) (“In general, conferences
between an associate and a supervising partner are necessary to effective and
diligent representation, and in the end reduce the amount of unnecessary time spent
on a case”). Oberfelder v. City of Petaluma, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8635, *21.
Davis v. City and County of San Francisco, 976 F.2d 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (more
than one attorney may be involved in the same task). Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d
1211, 1236 (9th Cir. 1991) (multiple attorneys can reasonably bill to one case). See
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 11 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.667 Page 19 of 29
American Charities for Reasonable Fundraising Regulation, Inc. v. Pinellas
County, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1301, 1314 (M.D. Fl. 2003) (finding that it is not
necessarily objectionable for a party to have more than one lawyer, and stating
“time spend in attorney conferences is generally compensable for each
participant”).
The hourly rate for an attorney with the experience of Plaintiff’s attorneys is
reasonable for the Southern District of California. See Exhibit C attached to the
Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian filed concurrently herewith; see also Blum v.
Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S. Ct. 1541, 79 L. Ed. 2d. 891 (1984). Over the course
of time Hyde & Swigart’s & Kazerouni Law Group’s approved hourly rates for
each of its attorneys has steadily increased. Swigart Dec. ¶ 41-42; Kazerounian
Dec. ¶ 32-33; Declaration of Jessica R. K. Dorman (“Dorman Dec.”) ¶ 15-18;
Declaration of Crosby S. Connolly (“Connolly Dec.”) ¶ 7-13.
Most recently Mr. Swigart and Mr. Kazerounian were both approved for an
hourly rate of $605 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California in Muhammed Abdeljalil v. G.E. Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 12-
CV-02078-JAH-MDD (finding “Plaintiffs’ counsels’ hourly rates to be fair and
reasonable”) and $605.00 by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California in Paul Stemple v. QC Holdings, Inc., 12-CV-01997-BAS-
WVG (finding that a rate of $605.00 per hour was reasonable as well as a 1.478
multiplier). Thus, the combined lodestar calculation for the efforts of all attorneys
as detailed above is reasonable.
In addition, Plaintiff’s Counsel also incurred a total of $8,441.37 in
reasonable costs and expenses of this litigation, which included the filing fees
associated with the filing of eleven (11) separate complaints, the service fees
associated with the filing of these complaints, travel costs, as well as postage, and
other minimal administrative costs. Swigart Dec. at ¶ 39-40.
///
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 12 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.668 Page 20 of 29
Therefore, prior to the hearing on the current motion to recover attorneys’
fees and costs, the lodestar calculation for the award of attorneys’ fees and cost to
Plaintiff in this matter totals $168,412.67. To obtain this favorable settlement,
Plaintiff’s Counsel agreed to take a reduction on Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and
costs.
3. Previously Established Rates are Reasonable and Appropriate
for Plaintiff’s Counsel
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated “[t]he statute and legislative history
established that ‘reasonable fees’ under Section 1988 are to be calculated according
to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether
plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel." Blum v. Stenson, supra, 465
U.S. at 895, 104 S. Ct. at 1547 (footnote omitted). Furthermore, “[d]eclarations
regarding the prevailing market rate in the relevant community suffice to establish a
reasonable hourly rate.” See Widrig v. Apfel, 140 F.3d 1207, 1209 (9th Cir. 1998);
Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 100 F.3d 691, 696 (9th Cir.
1996).
“In order to encourage able counsel to undertake FDCPA cases, as Congress
intended, it is necessary that counsel be awarded fees commensurate with those
which they could obtain by taking other types of cases … Paying counsel in
FDCPA cases at rates lower than those they could obtain in the marketplace is
inconsistent with the Congressional desire to enforce the FDCPA through private
actions, and therefore misapplies the law.” Tolentino v. Friedman, 46 F. 3d 645,
652-653 (7th Cir. 1995). A fee award should permit counsel “to earn an income
that would be competitive with colleagues who get paid win or lose.” Bayless v. Iris
Leopold Imports, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 942 (D. Ore. 1987). Furthermore, the Ninth
Circuit also reiterated that the relevant legal marketplace is not limited to FDCPA
cases: “[i]n order to encourage able counsel to undertake FDCPA cases, as
Congress intended, it is necessary that counsel be awarded fees commensurate with
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 13 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.669 Page 21 of 29
those that they could obtain by taking other types of cases. Camacho v. Bridgeport
Financial, Inc., 523 F. 3d 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, the hourly rates requested herein are commensurate with the
experience and training of Plaintiff’s counsel, whose experience and expertise
discussed in detail in the declarations of Plaintiff’s Counsel filed concurrently
herewith. In addition, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s hourly rated have steadily risen over
time, and different rates have been approved based on the complex or non-complex
nature of the litigation. For example, Plaintiff’s Counsel Abbas Kazerounian was
approved for and hourly rate of $545 and Joshua B. Swigart was approved for a
hourly rate of $595 in Lemieux v. EZ Lube, Inc. et al., 12-cv-01791-BAS-JLB (S.D.
Cal.) [Dkt. No. 83]; Hoffman v. Bank of America, N.A., 12-cv-00539-JAH-DHB
(S.D. Cal.) [Dkt. No. 67]; and Zaw v. Nelnet Business Solutions, Inc., 13-cv-05788-
RS (N. D. Cal.) [Dkt. No. 39]. More recently, both Abbas Kazerounian and Joshua
B. Swigart were approved for an hourly rate of $595 in an unpublished opinion by
the Court of Appeal of the State of California in William Mount, et al., v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., No. B260585 (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 10, 2016) (The Appellate
Court upheld the Trial Court’s ruling that an enhancement was appropriate for
obtaining a $5.6 million settlement fund when faced with the uncertainties and
defenses previously raised by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.). Additionally, as discussed
above, Mr. Swigart and Mr. Kazerounian were both approved for an hourly rate of
$605 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in
Muhammed Abdeljalil v. G.E. Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 12-CV-02078-JAH-
MDD and $605 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California in Paul Stemple v. QC Holdings, Inc., 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG. Thus,
the previously approved and established rate for Plaintiff’s Counsel is appropriate
in this action.
///
///
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 14 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.670 Page 22 of 29
4. The Award of Attorneys’ Fees is Not Limited by The Amount
of Damages
As long as the Plaintiff is successful (i.e., recovers more than nominal
damages), the Plaintiff should be awarded attorneys fees pursuant to a lodestar
calculation. Zagorski v. Midwest Billing Services, Inc., 128 F.3d 1164 (7th Cir.
1997). Here, by obtaining the deletion of the derogatory term from Plaintiff’s credit
reports, Plaintiff was able to recover a value for Class Members that is collectively
valued far in excess of the one percent (1%) of Defendant’s net worth (maximum
imposed under the FDCPA) due to the experience and tenacious litigation
techniques of Plaintiff’s counsel. Despite the fact that an award of attorneys’ fees is
not limited by the amount of damages, Plaintiff’s favorable result justifies the
attorneys’ fees and costs sought by the current Motion. Furthermore, the attorneys
fees and costs that are being paid to Plaintiffs’ counsel in this matter are separate
and in addition the consideration provided to the Class Members.
“In the absence of any indication that Congress intended to adopt a strict rule
that attorneys fees under section 1988 be proportionate to damages recovered, we
decline to adopt such a rule ourselves.” City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561,
581; 106 S. Ct. 2686, 2697; 91 L. Ed. 2d. 466 (1986) (footnote omitted). See also
Quaration v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422 (2d Cir. 1999). The benefits to the public
as a whole resulting from lawsuits that encourage compliance with statutory
provisions are more important than relatively small damage awards. Indeed, when
the provision for counsel fees is included in a regulatory act, it is a recognition that
enforcement of the statute would be unlikely if an individual had to pay his or her
own attorney's fees. The Court quoted Senator Tunney’s remarks the Congressional
Record:If the citizen does not have the resources, his day in court is denied him; the congressional policy which he seeks to assert and vindicate those under indicated; and the entire nation, not just the individual citizen, suffers.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 15 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.671 Page 23 of 29
City of Riverside v. Rivera, supra, 477 U.S. at 575, 106 S. Ct. at 2694 (citation
omitted).
The Third Circuit amplified this thought stating:
Congress provided fee shifting to enhance enforcement of important civil rights, consumer-protection, and environmental policies. By providing competitive rates we assure that attorneys will take such cases, and hence increase the likelihood that the congressional policy of redressing public interest claims will be vindicated.
Student Public Interest Research Group v. AT&T Bell Laboratories, 842 F.2d 1436,
1449 (3d Cir. 1988).
As stated above, “Congress has relied on such plaintiffs to act as private
attorneys general.” Id., at 1450 n.13. See also Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107,
113 (3d Cir. 1991). The amount of damages awarded need not bear any relation to
the amount of attorney's fees granted. “[A]ttorney’s fees awarded by district courts
have ‘frequently outrun the economic benefits ultimately obtained by successful
litigants.’” Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 735; 106 S. Cot. 1531, 1541; 89 L. Ed.
2d. 747 (1986) (citation omitted). Upon finding a statutory violation and damages,
the attorney’s fees award should be made in the lodestar amount. Johnson v. Eaton,
80 F.3d 148 (5th Cir. 1996).
Although the amount of reasonable attorneys’ fees awarded pursuant to the
FDCPA or RFDCPA is left to the sound discretion of each judge, the Court may
find the following awards helpful in making its determination. The Northern
District of California awarded $98,924 and attorney’s fees in a FDCPA case that
had $3,240.80 in damages. Civitello v. First Credit of America, LLC, 2007 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 46620 (N.D. Cal. 2007). In Armstrong v. The Rose Law Firm, P.A.,
2002 WL 31050583 (D. Minn., Sept. 5, 2002), the District Court approved the
award of $43,180 in attorney’s fees where the plaintiff recovered $1,000 in
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 16 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.672 Page 24 of 29
statutory damages. The Southern District of Florida affirmed the bankruptcy
court's award of attorney's fees of $29,037.50 where the plaintiff recovered
FDCPA statutory damages of $1,000. In re Martinez, 266 B.R. 523, 544 (Bankr.
S.D. Fla. 2001), aff’d 271 B.R. 696 (S.D. Fla. 2001). In Jones v. Robert Vest, 2000
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19026 (E.D. Va. Dec. 27, 2000), the court awarded $17,766.49 in
costs, litigation expenses and attorney’s fees in a FDCPA case with $1,000 in
statutory damages. In Perez v. Perkiss, 842 F. Supp. 883 (D. Del. 1990), the
District Court awarded $10,110 in attorney’s fees where the plaintiff’s recovery
was $1,200. The Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's denial of attorney's fees
even though the plaintiffs only recovered $100 ($50 each) as FDCPA statutory
damages and remanded for determination of an award of attorneys’ fees. Zagorski
v. Midwest Billing Services, Inc., supra at 1167 (The United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court’s judgment and remanded the
matter for further proceedings consistent with the Appellate Court’s findings).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s request of $125,000.00, when over $159,000.00
in fees were reasonably incurred, is a modest and appropriate request.
“Unlike most private tort litigants, a plaintiff who brings an FDCPA action
seeks to vindicate important rights that cannot be valued solely in monetary terms
and Congress has determined that the public as a whole has an interest in the
vindication of the statutory rights.” Tolentino v. Friedman, supra at 652 (citing
City of Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561, S. Ct. 2686, 91 L. Ed. 2d. 466 (1986)).
“When a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a full
compensatory fee.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, supra at 435. Here, Plaintiff’s counsel
believes that an award of credit deletion is an excellent result for Plaintiff and the
Class Members. Therefore Plaintiff’s counsel’s request for $125,000.00 for
Attorneys’ Fees and $7,500.00 for Costs is a reasonable and appropriate award,
particularly because the amount of attorneys fees reasonably incurred thus far,
without time spent for final approval, exceeds this request by over $30,000.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 17 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.673 Page 25 of 29
5. The Settlement Represents an Outstanding Result for the
Class
The parties’ settlement in this action represents an outstanding result for the
Settlement Class Members. Typically, individual consumers are unaware of their
rights under the FDCPA or RFDCPA and the size of individual claims is usually so
small there is little incentive to sue individually, therefore class actions to enforce
such consumer protection statutes are superior to individual claims. According to
15 U.S.C. §1692k: “(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, any debt
collector who fails to comply with any provision of this title with respect to any
person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of …(2) (B) in the
case of a class action…(ii) such amount as the court may allow for all other class
members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the
lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the debt collector…” 15
U.S.C. §1692k. Here, the Parties have stipulated and agreed that each of the 6,677
Class Members will receive a permanent trade-line deletion on accounts
legitimately in default, that is collectively valued far in excess of one percent (1%)
of Defendant’s net worth. See a true and correct copy of the Parties’ Settlement
Agreement filed on November 7, 2016, ECF 43-1. This is a huge benefit to
consumers because of the high loan balances associated with many of these student
loans. With the removal of these trade-line entries, the Class Members will see
their debt-to-credit ratios improve, and their credit score should increase
significantly, which will enable many class members to qualify for home loans, car
loans, jobs, and/or rentals that they would not have otherwise been approved for.
Thus, the Settlement is a particularly favorable result as the parties have
agreed to an amount that exceeds the one percent (1%) of Defendant’s actual net
worth and exceeds the maximum amount the Class can be awarded if this action
were to proceed to trial. Further, by settling this matter, both parties avoid the
expense of trial and uncertainty of outcome. If this matter proceeded to trial the net
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 18 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.674 Page 26 of 29
value of the recovery could be further decreased due to the costs of compelling
further discovery, retaining expert witnesses, preparing for trial and possibly,
engaging in post trial matters, including the lodging of an appeal. Therefore, the
Parties’ Settlement is not only fair, adequate and reasonable for all involved, but
also an outstanding result for the Class.
D. Plaintiff’s Counsel Are Also Entitled to an Award of Costs and
Litigation Expenses Pursuant to The FDCPA and The Rosenthal
Act
Plaintiff requests an award of costs and litigation expenses in addition to an
award of attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3) and 1788.30(c). Long-
distance telephone and fax expenses, as well as copying and postage have been
awarded as costs. Sousa v. Miguel, 32 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994).
Recoverable costs include travel, photocopies, lodging, postage, telephone calls,
and computerized research. Libertad v. Sanchez, 134 F. Supp. 2d 218, 236 (D.P.R.
2001). Costs may be recovered as provided for by statutes as well as 28 U.S.C.
1920. See Lathem v. Department of Children & Youth Servs., 172 F.3d 786, 794
(11th Cir. 1999). Computer research costs are also recoverable. United Nuclear
Corp. v. Cannon, 564 F. Supp. 581, 591-92 (D. R. I. 1983) (“LEXIS is an essential
tool of a modern, efficient law office. As such, it saves lawyers time by increasing
the efficiency of legal research. Denial of reimbursement for LEXIS charges in a
proper case would be an open invitation to law firms to use high-priced attorney
time to perform routine research tasks that can be accomplished quicker and more
economically with LEXIS.”) Plaintiff’s litigation expenses and costs are
commensurate with those expenses approved in other courts, and are compensable.
Plaintiff seeks reimbursement of costs totaling $7,377.09 as summarized below
and detailed in Exhibit B to Swigart Dec. at ¶ 39-40, 44.
///
///
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 19 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.675 Page 27 of 29
E. Plaintiff’s Counsel Are Entitled to an Award of Additional Fees
and Costs For Anticipated Work Incurred In Seeking Final
Approval
The declarations submitted by Plaintiff’s Counsel detail the time expended
in this litigation. To date, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s reasonable attorneys fees in the
amount of $159,971.00 exceeds the amount of fees of $125,000.00 requested in the
parties joint motion for preliminary approval. Similarly, Plaintiff’s Counsel’s costs
have nearly reached the maximum of $7,500 as agreed to in the Settlement
Agreement. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel anticipates incurring additional fees
and costs associated with with the briefing of Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary
approval and attending the final approval hearing, among other things.
V. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs is
mandated in this action as Plaintiff is the prevailing party under the FDCPA and
RFDCPA, and it is an agreed-upon term of the parties’ Settlement Agreement,
which has been preliminarily approved by this Honorable Court. Further, the time
billed reflects the time required to successfully prosecute this FDCPA and
Rosenthal action, whether on an individual or class basis. The hourly rates sought
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 20 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
iaDescription Amount
Filing Fee (Represents all 11 cases) $ 4,400.00
Service of Process (For all 11 Cases & Multiple Defendants) $ 1,880.00
Courtesy Copy Costs $ 70.00
Travel Fees $ 229.58
Mediation Fees $ 1,670.00
Parking Fees $ 32.00
Overnight Mailing Costs $ 33.59
Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $ 126.50
Total Costs $ 8,441.67
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.676 Page 28 of 29
by Plaintiff’s attorneys are at reasonable market rates. Notably, using these
reasonable rates, Plaintiff's Counsel has reasonably incurred 373.60 hours of
attorney time, for a total lodestar of $159,971.00. Further, this any award of
attorneys fees and/or cost will be paid by Defendants, not the Class. Thus,
Plaintiff’s counsel submits that they should be awarded the agreed upon
$125,000.00 in attorneys’ fees; and $7,500.00 for reasonable costs.
Respectfully submitted, Hyde & Swigart
Date: January 9, 2017 By:/s/ Joshua B. Swigart Joshua B. Swigart Attorneys for Plaintiff, and the settlement class
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Points & Authorities in Supp. of Attorney’s Fees and Costs - 21 of 21 - 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-1 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.677 Page 29 of 29
HYDE & SWIGARTJoshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)[email protected] S. Connolly, Esq. (SBN: 286650)[email protected] Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101San Diego, CA 92108Telephone: (619) 233-7770Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APCAbbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)[email protected] Fischer Avenue, Unit D1Costa Mesa, CA 92626Telephone: (800) 400-6808Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Attorneys for Dawn Zoerb and the settlement class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 1 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff,v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.,
Defendants.
Case No: 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
DECLARATION OF JOSHUA B. SWIGART, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Date: April 3, 2017Time: 10:30 A.M.Courtroom: 4B
Judge: Hon. Cynthia Bashant
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.678 Page 1 of 16
1. I, Joshua B. Swigart, hereby declare under penalty of perjury, and pursuant to
the laws of the State of California, that the preceding is true and correct.
2. I am a partner of the law firm of Hyde & Swigart (H&S) and one of the
attorneys for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action. I am a member in good
standing of the bars of the State of California, Michigan, Washington State
and the District of Columbia. I am also admitted in every federal district in
California and have handled federal litigation in Arizona, Washington,
Minnesota, Tennessee and Texas.
3. Except as otherwise noted, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in
this declaration, and could testify competently to them if called upon to do so.
I am writing this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’
Fees, Costs and Incentive Payment.1
4. I am one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff DAWN ZOERB (“ZOERB”) in this
action. I submit this declaration in support of the parties Joint Motion for
Class Certification in the action against Defendants NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE
STATUTORY TRUST(S), et. al. (“DEFENDANT TRUSTS”), and the LAW
OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C. (“P&F”), collectively,
(“DEFENDANTS”). I am licensed to practice law before this court. If called
as a witness, I would competently testify to the matters herein from personal
knowledge.
5. As the Court is aware, this matter has been pending for nearly two years and
the Parties have vigorously litigated the issues throughout that time. I will
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 2 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1 Plaintiffs’ Counsel is filing the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs early, pursuant to In Re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs Counsel anticipates they will spend additional hours addressing any objections to the Settlement, preparing papers for final approval, traveling to and attending the final approval hearing, and continuing to oversee settlement administration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.679 Page 2 of 16
summarize the case history below to establish the extensive work done by
Plaintiff’s Counsel.
6. On March 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed this matter in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District alleging violations by Defendants of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”) and
California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil
Code §§ 1788 et seq. (“RFDCPA”). ECF. No. 1.].
7. Plaintiff’s counsel also filed ten (10) other actions against Defendants based
on the same alleged violations alleged in the complaint in this matter.2
8. On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases. [ECF. 8].
9. On April 18, 2014, this Court transferred this action along with the ten (10)
other similar actions to the Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant. [ECF. No. 11].
10. Thereafter, on August 22, 2014, the parties participated in mediation with the
Hon. Herbert B. Hoffman, Ret., at which time, the parties reached a
settlement, and agreed to consolidate the actions. After the key settlement
terms were agreed-upon, the parties also agreed to reasonable fees and costs.
11. On October 2, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Consolidate. [ECF.
No. 21].
12. On June 23, 2015, the Court approved the Parties’s request to appoint the
Hon. Herbert B. Hoffman, Ret. as Special Master.
13. On May 24, 2016, after working out the intricate details of the settlement, the
Parties submitted a motion for preliminary approval.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 3 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
2 See Sandi Parra, Reynaldo Raquel, and Lisa Alward, Case No. 14-00475 (S.D. Cal.); Madeline Montry and Rebecca Burlingame, Case No. 14-00519 (S.D. Cal.); Joel and Janice Benoit, Case No. 14-00522 (S.D. Cal.); Robin Goret, Case No. 14-00807 (S.D. Cal.); Robin Goret, Case No. 14-00809 (S.D. Cal.); Charlene Baxter, Case No.14-01049 (S.D. Cal.); Lora Mayhugh, Case No. 14-01208 (S.D. Cal.); Laurie Alderman, Case No.14-01210 (S.D. Cal.); Andrew Toney, Case No. 14-01321 (S.D. Cal.), and Tricia Benavente, Case No. 14-01992 (D. Nev.).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.680 Page 3 of 16
14. This motion sought approval of a class settlement under Federal Rules of
Procedure 23(b)(2) only, and did not envision notice to the class, as individual
rights were not being released.
15. Eventually the Parties and their counsel agreed that a better solution and
settlement would include notice of the actual consideration to the class and
notice of the action consistent with Federal Rules of Procedure 23(b)(3).
16. Plaintiffs’ Counsel now seeks the Courts approval to be paid attorneys’ fees,
and costs, outside the award to the Class.
EXPERIENCE OF HYDE & SWIGART
17. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of California and am a
partner at Hyde & Swigart (“H&S”), which has been retained to represent
Zoerb in the above-captioned matter. I am over the age of 18 and am fully
competent to make this declaration. I was admitted to the State Bar of
California in 2007 and have been a member in good standing ever since that
time. I have litigated cases in both state and federal courts in California,
Washington, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, Tennessee and Texas. I am also
admitted in every federal district in California and have handled federal
litigation in the federal districts of California; including being admitted to the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.
18. I have been appointed class counsel in several class actions brought pursuant
to consumer protection statutes, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”), California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code §§ 1788 et seq. (“RFDCPA”),
California Penal Code § 630, et seq.; and, the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (TCPA). My practice involves significant class
action litigation and I am or have been counsel in significant national class
actions including, but not limited to, class actions against Bank of America,
Chase and Wells Fargo to mention a few.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 4 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.681 Page 4 of 16
19. I am the managing partner of Hyde & Swigart. I have been appointed lead
counsel in numerous federal class actions, resulting in millions of dollars of
settlements for my clients. I am currently lead or co-counsel for over 75 class
action lawsuits currently pending in federal courts across the country, and as a
result have paramount knowledge in this area of law.
20. I have been requested to, and have made, regular presentations to community
organizations regarding debt collection laws. The following are a few
examples of such presentations:
a. California Western School of Law, 2005;
b. Canyon Springs High School, Moreno Valley, CA 2003-2008; Careers in
the legal field.
c. Guest speaker on national talk radio. Topic: the passage of House Bill
allowing the IRS to send past due consumer tax bills to private debt
collection firms;
d. Regular host on 103.7 Free FM on the radio show Know The Law.
Topics addressing specific collection issues. Appearances number
more than ten shows;
e. Department of Defense; JAG Office, Naval Station San Diego (2006);
f. Department of Defense; JAG Office, Naval Station San Diego,
relevant Fair Credit Reporting issues and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (2008);
g. American Bar Association – Legal Assistance for Military Personnel,
Naval Station –North Island (2008);
h. National Consumer Law Center - E-Discovery issues - San Diego
(2009);
i. National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys - Prosecuting
consumer cases - San Francisco (2009);
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 5 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.682 Page 5 of 16
j. American Bar Association - Seminar on defending consumer collection
cases (2010);
k. Military Law Committee (MCRD) - Representing military service
members in consumer related issues - San Diego (2010);
l. Speaker at a Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; San
Diego, CA – 2009;
m. Speaker at an ABA/JAG presentation to military service members and
counsel; MCRD, San Diego – 2010;
n. Speaker at an ABA teleconference on defending consumer credit card debt
and related issues; San Diego, CA – 2010;
o. Speaker ABA on Conducting and Managing Internal Investigations of
Financial Institutions; National ABA Conference; San Francisco – 2013.
21. I have also lectured at the American Bar Association’s National Convention as
a leading expert in TCPA litigation (2013 convention in San Francisco) and
also lectured on RPA at the American Bar Association’s National Webinar in
September 2013.
22. I am also a member of the following organizations:
a. National Association of Consumer Advocates;
b. Federal Bar Association;
c. The American Association for Justice;
d. Riverside County Bar Association;
e. San Bernardino County Bar Association; and,
f. Consumer Attorneys of California;
g. San Diego County Bar Association.
23. In addition I have received extensive training in the area of consumer law.
Such trainings include:
a. National Consumer Law Conference; Oakland, CA – 2003;
b. National Consumer Law Conference; Kansas City, MO – 2004;
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 6 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.683 Page 6 of 16
c. National Consumer Law Conference; Boston, MA – 2004;
d. Five-day extensive one-on-one training with The Barry Law Office;
San Diego, CA –2005;
e. Three-dayFDCPAMini-Conference;Minneapolis,MN–2005;
f. Four-day extensive one-on-one training with The Barry Law Office;
Minneapolis, MN – 2005;
g. Four-day National Association of Consumer Advocates Conference;
Minneapolis, MN – 2005;
h. Four-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Nashville, TN
–2008;
i. Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Portland, OR
-2008;
j. Speaker at a Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference;
San Diego, CA - 2009;
k. Speaker ABA/JAG presentation to military service members and counsel;
MCRD, San Diego CA – 2010;
l. Speaker ABA teleconference on defending consumer credit card debt and
related issues; San Diego, CA – 2010;
m. Three-day National Consumer Law Center Conference; Seattle, WA -
2011;
n. Two-day FDCPA Mini-Conference; New Orleans; LA – 2012;
o. Two-day National Consumer Law Center Conference on the FDCPA;
Seattle, W A - 2012;
p. National Consumer Law Center Conference, National Convention;
Baltimore, MD - 2013;
q. Speaker ABA National Conference, Business Litigation Section; Trends in
Consumer Litigation; San Francisco, CA - 2013;
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 7 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.684 Page 7 of 16
r. Speaker National Consumer Law Center; Nuts and Bolts of TCPA
Litigation; San Antonio, TX - 2014;
s. Speaker San Diego County Bar Association; Convergence of the FDCPA
and Consumer Bankruptcy; San Diego, CA – 2014;
t. Guest Speaker at California Western School of Law; Consumer Law –
2014;
u. Speaker at NCLC; Miami, FL – 2015;
v. Speaker at NACA; San Antonio, TX – 2015; and,
w. Speaker Three-day FDCPA Mini-Conference; Miami, FL – 2016.
HYDE & SWIGART SPECIALIZES IN
CONSUMER RIGHTS CLASS ACTIONS
24. I have extensive experience prosecuting class actions related to consumer
issues. My firm, Hyde & Swigart (“H&S”), in which I am a principal, has
litigated over 1,500 individual based consumer cases and have litigated over
300 consumer class actions.
25. Some of the cases more significant class actions that I have been involved in,
include but are not limited to:
a. Knell v. FIA Card Services, N.A., et al., 12-CV-426 AJB (WVG) (S.D.
Cal. 2014) (Co-lead counsel on a California class action involving privacy
rights under Cal. Penal Code § 632 et seq. Class relief provided for a
common fund in the amount of $2,750,000. Counsel obtained final
approval on August 15, 2014);
b. Hoffman v. Bank of America, N.A., 12-CV-539 JAH (DHB) (S.D. Cal.
2014) (Co-lead counsel on a California class action involving privacy
rights under Cal. Penal Code § 632 et seq. Class relief provided for a
common fund in the amount of $2,600,000. Finally approved on
November 6, 2014);
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 8 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.685 Page 8 of 16
c. Zaw v. Nelnet Business Solutions, Inc., et al., C 13-05788 RS (N.D. Cal.
2014) (Co-lead counsel on a California class action involving privacy
rights under Cal. Penal Code § 632 et seq. Class relief provided for a
common fund in the amount of $1,188,110. Final approval granted on
December 1, 2014);
d. CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal. App. 273 (2008) (Allowing the
original plaintiff who lacked standing in a class action to conduct pre-
certification discovery of the identities of potential plaintiffs with
standing);
e. Knight v. CashCall, Inc., 200 Cal. App. 4th 1377 (2011) (Co-lead counsel
on a class action involving privacy rights under Cal. Penal Code § 632 et
seq. Appeals court reversing the trial courts granting of Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment after case was certified);
f. Engelen v. Erin Capital Management, LLC, et al., No. 12-55039 (9th Cir.
2013, not for publication, D.C. No.: 3:10-cv-01125-BEN-RBB)
(Reversing the lower court’s granting of summary judgment to the
defendant debt collector on the basis of the bona fide error defense and
remanding for further proceedings);
g. Sherman v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13286; 13-CV-0041-
GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (TCPA class action where Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment was denied holding that a single call or text message
with the use of an ATDS may be actionable under the TCPA);
h. Olney v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9146 (S.D. Cal.); 13-CV-2058-GPC-NLS (Defendant’s motion to
dismiss or in the alternative to strike the class allegations was denied
finding that debt collection calls were not exempt from coverage under
the TCPA);
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 9 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.686 Page 9 of 16
i. Iniguez v. The CBE Group, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127066 (E.D.
Cal.) 13-CV-00843-JAM-AC (The court denying Defendant’s motion to
dismiss and to strike class allegations holding that the TCPA applies to
any call made to a cellular telephone with an ATDS).
j. Catala v. Resurgent Capital Servs., L.P., 08-CV-2401 NLS, 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 63501 (S.D. Cal.)(Co-lead counsel on a class settlement
involving the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act);
k. Hosseinzadeh v. M.R.S. Assocs., 387 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (C.D. Cal. 2005)
(Summary judgment was granted sua sponte in favor of a debtor where
debt collector violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, when its
employees failed to disclose the debt collector’s identity and the nature of
its business in the messages left on the debtor’s answering machine). This
case has now been followed in at least four different districts throughout
the country.
l. Edstrom v. All Servs. & Processing, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2773 (N.D.
Cal. 2005) (Numerous omissions from a letter sent by a debt collector to
members of a homeowners association, and a statement requiring any
dispute to be put in writing, violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(a) of the FDCPA
and Cal. Civ. Code §1788.17. The FDCPA required strict compliance;
actual confusion on debtors’ part was not required);
m. Forsberg v. Fid. Nat’l Credit Servs., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7622 (S.D.
Cal. 2004) (Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support his claim that a
collection company, in its initial communication, did not comply with the
statutory requirements for notice of validation of debts under the
FDCPA);
n. Sparrow v. Mazda Am. Credit, 385 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (N.D. Cal. 2005)
(Court struck Defendant’s counter claim of the underlying debt in a fair
debt action based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction);
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 10 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.687 Page 10 of 16
o. Geoffroy, et al. v. Washington Mutual Bank, 484 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (S.D.
Cal. 2007)(Court striking down Defendant’s arbitration agreement as both
procedurally and substantively unconscionable);
p. Yang v. DTS Financial Group, 07-CV-1731 JLS (WMc) (Holding that for
profit debt settlement companies are covered under the FDCPA and can be
construed as “debt collectors” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6));
q. Mason v. Creditanswers, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68575 (Holding that a
forum selection clause causing a California consumer to litigate its claims
seems contrary to the polices advanced by certain consumer protection
statutes).
r. Myers v. LHR, Inc., 543 F.Supp.2d 1215 (2008) (Recognizing actual and
statutory damages in the amount of $92,000 in a default judgment based
on violations of the State and Federal collection statutes);
s. Yates v. Allied Intl Credit Corp., 578 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (2008) (Holding a
debtors claim based on the FDCPA stemming from the filing of a false
police report was not subject to the litigation privilege under Cal. Civ.
Code § 47(b));
t. Owings v. Hunt & Henriques, et al., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91819 (S.D.
Cal.); (Recognizing that the Service Members Civil Relief Act applies to
California National Guard Members and that the debt collection attorney’s
false declaration the court violates the FDCPA);
u. Heathman v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
98742 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (Holding that failing to properly list and disclose
the identify of the original creditor in a state collection pleading is a
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act under 15 U.S.C. §
1692e).
///
//
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 11 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.688 Page 11 of 16
CONTINGENT NATURE OF ACTION
26. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rates include many factors beyond personal
compensation, including non-billed office personnel, equipment, insurance,
research materials, office and other overhead expenses. FDCPA litigation
inevitably involves large corporations, which have the capacity to bring
enormous resources to bear that individual consumers are simply unable to
meet on their own. Collection companies vigorously resist settling cases.
Thus, if plaintiffs’ attorneys are not compensated at a rate that allows them to
maintain the technological – as well as intellectual and professional resources
– to match corporate defendants’ exhaustive resources, consumers simply
cannot prevail. Few attorneys have the means and ability to take these cases,
and if those that do so are not compensated at a rate that allows them the
chance of prevailing on behalf of consumers, these cases will not be brought,
and the remedial purpose of this legislation will fail.
27. Unfortunately, there are very few attorneys who regularly represent plaintiffs
in cases involving the FDCPA. This is most likely due to the specialized and
complex nature of the statute and case law and due to the relative financial
resources of the respective parties, whereby the consumer is often forced to
“match resources” with the defendant and litigate his or her rights up to, and
sometimes through, trial.
28. The average consumer does not have funds to litigate this type of case.
Therefore, in further justification of our fees, I note that we take such cases on
a contingency fee basis, advance all litigation costs and do not charge the
consumer one penny up front. This action has required Hyde & Swigart to
spend time on this litigation that could have been spent on other matters. At
various times during the litigation of this class action, this lawsuit has
consumed my time as well as my firm’s resources. My firm has not been paid
anything for our work on this case since it was filed. It is my opinion that law
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 12 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.689 Page 12 of 16
firms in such a position expect to receive a multiplier in cases such as these
because of the risk taken, the extent to which firms are unable to take on other
cases, the delay in getting paid and the costs my firm must advance in order to
litigate such cases.
29. If the case is lost, we do not get paid. This alone would justify a fee rate well
in excess of the fees we charge for doing hourly work.
HYDE & SWIGART’S LODESTAR
30. Hyde & Swigart has maintained contemporaneous time records since the
commencement of this action. To date, I have incurred 92.8 hours of attorney
time for this case, with a total lodestar of $56,144.00. See Exhibit A. This
figure does not include an additional estimated 8 hours for preparing the final
approval hearing papers and addressing any objections to the settlement,
preparing for, traveling to, and appearing at the final approval hearing, and
further overseeing the settlement administration. Of course, if more than the
estimated hours are needed, that would increase my lodestar.
31. All attorneys and staff at Hyde & Swigart are instructed to maintain
contemporaneous time records reflecting the time spent on this and other
matters. The regular practice at Hyde & Swigart is for all attorneys and staff
to keep contemporaneous time records, maintained on a daily basis, and
describing tasks performed in 0.1-hour increments. Firm policy requires all
staff to enter their time into an electronic timekeeping system on a daily basis.
I review and audit the time on a regular basis.
32. Hyde & Swigart’s lodestar will grow as we continue to finalize the settlement
process and close the litigation. The claims period will last for a couple more
weeks, and Hyde & Swigart’s commitment of time and labor to this case will
continue until (and likely beyond) that date. Hyde & Swigart will continue to
assist Class members with individual inquiries, will oversee the claims
resolution process, and Plaintiff’s’ counsel will help resolve Class member
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 13 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.690 Page 13 of 16
challenges to the result of their claims submissions. Judging from previous
experiences, these responsibilities will require dozens of hours of work by
Plaintiffs’ counsel over the coming weeks.
33. Additionally, Laila Thompson, Esq., who no longer practices law at Hyde &
Swigart, conducted a total of 4.70 hours of work, at a billing rate of $350.00
per hour, on the matter Toney v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust
2007-2 et al, Case No. 3:14-CV-01321-BAS-KSC. As Ms. Thompson’s
supervising attorney at the time of the filing of Toney v. National Collegiate
Student Loan Trust 2007-2 et al, I can attest that her knowledge of consumer
rights law, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Rosenthal
Act, The Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the degree to which he has litigated
numerous cases under these areas of law, justifies her billing rate of $350.00.
34. Additionally, Additionally, David J. McGlothlin., the managing partner for
Hyde & Swigart in Arizona, conducted a total of 26.40 hours of work, at a
billing rate of $450.00. As Mr. McGlothlin’s supervising attorney, I can attest
to his knowledge of consumer rights law, including the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, the Rosenthal Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the degree to which he has litigated numerous
cases under these areas of law over multiple years, justifies his billing rate of
$365.00.
HYDE & SWIGART’S COSTS
35. Hyde & Swigart maintains all books and records regarding costs expended on
each case in the ordinary course of business. I have reviewed the records of
costs expended in this matter.
36. To date, Hyde & Swigart has incurred $7,377.09 in filing fees, service cost,
mailing and postage expenses related to the present action attached as Exhibit
B. Kazerouni Law Group has incurred an additional $1,064.58, for a total of
$8,441.67.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 14 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.691 Page 14 of 16
REASONABLENESS OF HOURLY RATES
37. Hyde & Swigart’s hourly rates are reasonable in respect to the ranges charged
by comparable law firms in the State of California.
38. From 2009 through present Hyde & Swigart’s approved hourly rate for both
attorneys and support staff has steadily increased. In 2013, in Malta v. Wells
Fargo Home Mortgage, 10-CV-1290-BEN (NLS) [ECF. 92], I was approved
for an hourly rate of $545. More recently, I have been approved for an hourly
rate of $595 in Lemieux v. EZ Lube, Inc. et al., 12-cv-01791-BAS-JLB (S.D.
Cal.) [ECF. No. 83]; and Hoffman v. Bank of America, N.A., 12-cv-00539-
JAH-DHB (S.D. Cal.) [ECF. No. 67]. Recently, I was approved for an hourly
rate of $595 in an unpublished opinion by the Court of Appeal of the State of
California in William Mount, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. B260585
(Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 10, 2016). Most recently I was approved for an hourly
rate of $605 by the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California in Muhammed Abdeljalil v. G.E. Capital Retail Bank, Case No.
12-CV-02078-JAH-MDD (finding “Plaintiffs’ counsels’ hourly rates to be fair
and reasonable”) and $605.00 by the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in Paul Stemple v. QC Holdings, Inc., 12-
CV-01997-BAS-WVG (finding that a rate of $605.00 per hour was reasonable
as well as a 1.478 multiplier).
EXHIBITS
39. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the summary of fees
incurred documenting the hours Hyde & Swigart has incurred while litigating
this matter. Counsel can provide detailed time sheets upon request of the
Court.
40. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true is a true and correct copy of and
accounting of Costs incurred by Hyde & Swigart in the prosecution of this
action.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 15 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.692 Page 15 of 16
41. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true is a true and correct copy of the
National Law Journal 2014 Billing Survey.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration
was executed on January 9, 2017.
By:/s/ Joshua B. Swigart Joshua B. Swigart
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart - 16 of 16 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-2 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.693 Page 16 of 16
HYDE & SWIGARTJoshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)[email protected] S. Connolly, Esq. (SBN: 286650)[email protected] Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101San Diego, CA 92108Telephone: (619) 233-7770Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APCAbbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)[email protected] Fischer Avenue, Unit D1Costa Mesa, CA 92626Telephone: (800) 400-6808Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Attorneys for Dawn Zoerb and the settlement class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 1 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff,v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.,
Defendants.
Case No: 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
DECLARATION OF ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Date: April 3, 2017Time: 10:30 A.M.Courtroom: 4B
Judge: Hon. Cynthia Bashant
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.694 Page 1 of 13
1. I, Abbas Kazerounian, hereby declare under penalty of perjury, and pursuant
to the laws of the State of California, that the preceding is true and correct.
2. I am one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff DAWN ZOERB (“ZOERB”) in this
action. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs1 in compliance with Plaintiffs’ settlement with Defendants
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A
DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S) (“DEFENDANT TRUSTS”), and the
LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C. (“P&F”), collectively,
(“DEFENDANTS”), in the above captioned action for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.; and the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq.
3. I am an attorney admitted to the State Bar of California in 2007 and have been
a member in good standing since that time. I have litigated cases in both state
and federal courts in California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Arkansas,
New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Tennessee, Ohio, Florida, Illinois and
Texas. I am admitted in every federal district in California and have handled
federal litigation in the federal districts of California. I am also admitted to
the state bar of Texas, Illinois, Washington, Michigan, District of Columbia,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United
States.
4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if called upon as a
witness, could and would competently testify thereto, except as to those
matters which are explicitly set forth as based upon my information and belief
and, as to such matters, I am informed and believe they are true and correct.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 2 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1 Plaintiffs’ Counsel is filing the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs early, pursuant to In Re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs Counsel anticipates they will spend additional hours addressing any objections to the Settlement, preparing papers for final approval, traveling to and attending the final approval hearing, and continuing to oversee the settlement administration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.695 Page 2 of 13
5. I serve as co-lead counsel for Plaintiffs in this Action together with Joshua B.
Swigart of Hyde & Swigart (H&S). KLG and H&S are collectively referred
to herein as “Plaintiffs’ Counsel.” Together, these firms have worked closely
to counsel Plaintiffs as to the overall litigation of this Action, as well as
strategy, case evaluation, and class certification.
6. In the interest of judicial economy, I incorporate by reference ¶¶ 5-15 of the
Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart as if fully stated herein. Said paragraphs
detail the litigation history, an explanation of the class, the adequacy of the
settlement and risks of continued litigation. I agree with each and every one
of these paragraphs.
CLASS COUNSEL’S EXPERIENCE
7. Kazerouni Law Group, APC, Hyde & Swigart seek to be confirmed as class
counsel for purposes of this action and proceeding with the settlement.
Supporting Declaration from Joshua B. Swigart details counsel’s respective
experience as class counsel.
8. I am an attorney admitted to practice in the State of California and am a
partner at Kazerouni Law Group, APC (“KLG”), which has been retained to
represent Zoerb in the above-captioned matter. I am a Partner of the law firm
of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, co-counsel of record for Plaintiff.
9. Since my admission to the California bar in 2007, I have been engaged
exclusively in the area of consumer rights litigation, primarily in the area of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (“FDCPA”),
California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil
Code §§ 1788 et seq. (“RFDCPA”), and class action litigation under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and California’s invasion of privacy
statutes, under Penal Code § 630 et seq.
10. My firm, Kazerouni Law Group, APC, in which I am a principal, has litigated
over 1000 individual consumer cases and 400 consumer class actions. My
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 3 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.696 Page 3 of 13
firm has six offices in Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Riverside, Phoenix,
Austin and Las Vegas. Kazerouni Law Group, APC has extensive experience
in consumer class actions and other complex litigation. My firm has a history
of aggressive, successful prosecution of consumer class actions.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC’S
CONSUMER RELATED EXPERIENCE AND RESULTS
11. I have substantial experience prosecuting complex consumer class action
litigation on behalf of a wide variety of plaintiffs. As one of the main plaintiff
litigators of consumer rights cases in California, I have been requested to and
have made regular presentations to community organizations regarding debt
collection laws and consumer rights. These organizations include Whittier
Law School, Iranian American Bar Association, Trinity School of Law and
Chapman Law School, University of Southern California, Irvine, and
California Western School of Law. I was the principle anchor on Time
Television Broadcasting every Thursday night as an expert on consumer law
between 2012 and 2013. I am a member of the following organizations in
good standing:
a. Member of Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles;
b. Member of the Orange County Bar Association;
c. Two time Former President of the Orange County Chapter of the
Iranian American Bar Association;
d. Board Member of National Association of Consumer Advocates;
e. Member of Consumer Attorneys of California;
f. Member of the Federal Bar Association; and
g. Member of the Leading Forum of the American Association of
Justice.
12. I have previously been a adjunct professor at California Western School of
Law where I taught a three-credit course in consumer law.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 4 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.697 Page 4 of 13
13. I have extensive experience prosecuting cases related to consumer issues. My
firm, Kazerouni Law Group, APC, in which I am a principal, has litigated
over 1000 individual based consumer cases and litigated over 400 consumer
class actions. These class actions were litigated in federal courts in
California, Colorado, Arkansas, Washington, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona,
Tennessee, Illinois and Texas, as well as California State Courts.
Approximately 95% percent of my practice concerns consumer litigation.
14. I have been named Rising Star by San Diego Daily Tribune in 2012, and
Rising Star in Super Lawyers Magazine in 2013, 2014, 2015, and Super
Lawyer in 2016.
15. A significant focus of Kazerouni Law Group, APC’s practice concerns
consumer rights litigation in general, on an individual and class basis,
including several putative class actions concerning violations of The Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and The Rosenthal Debt Collection
Practices Act (RFDCPA).
16. I have filed and litigated numerous consumer rights class actions based on
federal and state consumer statutes in the past several years. The following is
a non-exhaustive list of consumer rights class actions which I am or have
been personally involved in:
a. Hoffman v. Bank of America Corporation, 12-CV-00539-JAH-DHB
(S.D. Cal.) [ECF. No. 67] (California class action settlement under
Penal Code 632 et seq., for claims of invasion of privacy. Settlement
resulted in a common fund in the amount of $2,600,000; finally
approved on November 6, 2014);
b. Malta, et al. v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, et al., 10-CV-1290 IEG
(BLM) (Served as co-lead counsel for a settlement class of borrowers
in connection with residential or automotive loans and violations of the
TCPA in attempts to collect on those accounts; obtained a common
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 5 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.698 Page 5 of 13
settlement fund in the amount of $17,100,000; final approval granted
in 2013);
c. Conner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., 10-CV-1284 DMS (BGS)
(S.D. Cal.) (Currently serving as co-lead counsel for the settlement
class of borrowers in connection with residential loans and TCPA
violations stemming from the collection of those accounts; Settlement
of more than $11,000,000; finally approved);
d. In Re: Midland Credit Management, Inc., Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation, 11-md-2286-MMA (MDD) (S.D. Cal.)
(Counsel for a Plaintiff in the lead action, prior to the action being
recategorized through the multi-district litigation process; actively
involved in the MDL litigation and settlement process; Preliminarily
approved for $18,000,000);
e. In Re: Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation, 11-md-02295-JAH (BGS) (Counsel for a
Plaintiff in the lead action, prior to the action being recategorized
through the multi-district litigation process; still actively involved in
the MDL litigation and settlement process);
f. Arthur v. SLM Corporation, 10-CV-00198 JLR (W.D. Wash.)
(Nationwide TCPA settlement achieving $24.15M; final approval
granted in 2012);
g. Lo v. Oxnard European Motors, LLC, et al., 11-CV-1009-JLS-MDD
(S.D. Cal.) (Achieving one of the highest class member payouts in a
TCPA action of $1,331.25; final approval granted in 2012);
h. Sarabi v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., 10-01777-AJB-NLS
(S.D. Cal.) (Approved as co-lead counsel and worked to obtain a
national TCPA class settlement where claiming class members each
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 6 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.699 Page 6 of 13
received payment in the amount of $70.00; final approval granted in
2013);
i. Barani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 12-CV-02999-GPC-KSC (S.D. Cal.)
(Class action settlement under the TCPA for the sending of
unauthorized text messages to non-account holders in connection to
wire transfers; finally approved for over $1,000,000);
j. Sherman v. Yahoo!, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13286; 13-CV-0041-
GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (TCPA class action where Defendant’s motion
for summary judgment was denied holding that a single call or text
message with the use of an ATDS may be actionable under the TCPA).
k. Olney v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 9146 (S.D. Cal.); 13-CV-2058-GPC-NLS (Defendant’s motion
to dismiss or in the alternative to strike the class allegations was
denied finding that debt collection calls were not exempt from
coverage under the TCPA);
l. Iniguez v. The CBE Group, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 127066 (E.D.
Cal.); 13-CV-00843-JAM-AC (the court denying Defendant’s motion
to dismiss and to strike class allegations holding that the TCPA applies
to any call made to a cellular telephone with an ATDS);
m. Wilkins v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., Case No. 12-CV-04010-SI (N.D.
Ill.) (Finally approved for $39,975,000 on February 27, 2015);
n. Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 12-CV-06030-SI (N.D. Cal.);
o. Heinrichs v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 13-CV-05434-WHA (N.D. Cal.);
p. Newman v. ER Solutions, Inc., 11-CV-0592H (BGS);
q. In Re Jiffy Lube International, Inc., MDL No. 2261 (finally approved
for $47,000,000.00);
r. Jaber v. NASCAR, 11-CV-1783 DMS (WVG) (S.D. Cal.);
s. Ridley v. Union Bank, N.A., 11-CV-1773 DMS (NLS) (S.D. Cal.);
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 7 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.700 Page 7 of 13
t. Ryabyshchuk v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., et al, 11-CV-1236-IEG
(WVG);
u. Rivera v. Nuvell Credit Company LLC, 13-CV-00164-TJH-OP (E.D.
Cal);
v. Couser v. Comenity Bank, No. (S.D. Cal.) (Finally approved TCPA
class action with common fund of $8,475,000);
w. Fox v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, No. 14-cv-00734 -GW-FFM (C.D. Cal.)
(TCPA class action, preliminary approval for $1,000,000);
x. Olney v. Job.com, Inc. et al., No. 12-cv-01724-LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.);
y. Stemple v. QC Holdings, Inc., 12-cv-01997-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal.)
(class certification granted on September 5, 2014; preliminary
approval of Settlement of $2,500,000);
z. Newman v. AmeriCredit, 11-cv-03041-DMS-BLM (preliminarily
approved for $8,500,000 on November 26, 2014);
aa. Lemieux v. EZ Lube, Inc. et al., 12-cv-01791-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.)
(finally approved for $479,364 on December 8, 2014);
bb. Knutson v. Schwan’s Home Service, Inc. et al., 12-cv-00964-GPC-
DHB (S.D. Cal.) (Finally approved for $ 2,535,280);
cc. Franklin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:14-cv-02349-MMA-
BGS (S.D. Cal.)(finally approved for over $13,000,000);
dd. Knell v. FIA Card Services, Case No. 3:12-cv-00426-AJB-WVG (S.D.
Cal.) (finally approved for $2,750,000.00 on August 15, 2014); and
ee. Couser v. Apria Healthcare, Inc., 8:13-CV-00035-JVS-RNBx, (C.D.
Cal.) (finally approved for $750,000.00 on March 9, 2015);
ff. Macias v. Water & Power Community Credit Union, BC515936 (Los
Angeles Superior Court) (Class certification granted under the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; class action settlement
preliminarily approved on November 10, 2015); and,
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 8 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.701 Page 8 of 13
gg. Mount v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., BC395959 (Sup. Ct. Los Angeles)
(finally approved for $5,600,000).
17. I have successfully argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio, No. 12-56120 (9th Cir. 2014), which resulted in
an order reversing the district court’s decision to compel arbitration.
18. An article I wrote entitled, Principles of Litigating Consumer Class Actions,
was published in the February 2015 Edition of the Advocate.
19. Throughout this litigation, I have strived to fairly, responsibly, vigorously and
adequately represent the putative class members in this action. I believe that I
have been successful in that endeavor thus far and shall continue in this vein.
20. Therefore, I believe that my experience and years in practice are sufficient to
justify my hourly billing rate in this case of $605.00 per hour.
CONTINGENT NATURE OF ACTION
21. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hourly rates include many factors beyond personal
compensation, including non-billed office personnel, equipment, insurance,
research materials, office and other overhead expenses. FDCPA litigation
inevitably involves large corporations, which have the capacity to bring
enormous resources to bear that individual consumers are simply unable to
meet on their own. Collection companies vigorously resist settling cases.
Thus, if plaintiffs’ attorneys are not compensated at a rate that allows them to
maintain the technological – as well as intellectual and professional resources
– to match corporate defendants’ exhaustive resources, consumers simply
cannot prevail. Few attorneys have the means and ability to take these cases,
and if those that do so are not compensated at a rate that allows them the
chance of prevailing on behalf of consumers, these cases will not be brought,
and the remedial purpose of this legislation will fail.
22. Unfortunately, there are very few attorneys who regularly represent plaintiffs
in cases involving the FDCPA. This is most likely due to the specialized and
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 9 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.702 Page 9 of 13
complex nature of the statute and case law and due to the relative financial
resources of the respective parties, whereby the consumer is often forced to
“match resources” with the defendant and litigate his or her rights up to, and
sometimes through, trial.
23. The average consumer does not have funds to litigate this type of case.
Therefore, in further justification of our fees, I note that we take such cases on
a contingency fee basis, advance all litigation costs and do not charge the
consumer one penny up front. This action has required Kazerouni Law
Group, APC to spend time on this litigation that could have been spent on
other matters. At various times during the litigation of this class action, this
lawsuit has consumed my time as well as my firm’s resources. My firm has
not been paid anything for our work on this case since it was filed. It is my
opinion that law firms in such a position expect to receive a multiplier in
cases such as these because of the risk taken, the extent to which firms are
unable to take on other cases, the delay in getting paid and the costs my firm
must advance in order to litigate such cases.
24. If the case is lost, we do not get paid. This alone would justify a fee rate well
in excess of the fees we charge for doing hourly work.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC’S LODESTAR
25. I respectfully submit that this firm utilized skill, careful and thorough
preparation and investigation through litigation to reach a favorable result for
the Plaintiffs.
26. After carefully reviewing my firms billing records, I determined that the fees
were reasonably incurred in litigating this case to a successful resolution.
27. Kazerouni Law Group, APC has maintained contemporaneous time records
since the commencement of this action. To date, I have incurred 15.90 hours
of attorney time for this case, with a total lodestar of $9,619.50.2 This figure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 10 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
2 The hourly rate sought and used in this lodestar calculation is $605.00.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.703 Page 10 of 13
includes an additional estimated 5 hours of my time for preparing the final
approval hearing papers, supplemental briefing regarding attorneys’ fees,
addressing any objections to the settlement, preparing for, travel and
appearance time for the final approval hearing, and further overseeing the
settlement administration. My billing rate of $605.00 per hour in this case.
28. A reduction of approximately 12 hours was taken at arriving at these numbers,
including reducing the hours billed for reviewing documents, researching
various issues of the case, as well as not charging for several tasks, including
clerical work, emails, messages, etc. I reduced the amount based on
reasonable billing discretion.
29. Additionally, Danny Horen, Esq., who no longer practices law at Kazourni
Law Group, conducted a total of 7 hours of work, at a billing rate of $295.00
per hour, on the matter Benavente et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan
Trust 2007-3 et al, Case No. 3:15-CV-01021-BAS-KSC. As Mr. Horen’s
supervising attorney at the time of the filing of Benavente et al v. National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3 et al, I can attest that his knowledge of
consumer rights law, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Rosenthal Act, The Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the degree to which he has
litigated numerous cases under these areas of law, justifies his billing rate of
$295.00.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC’S COSTS
30. Kazerouni Law Group maintains all books and records regarding costs
expended on each case in the ordinary course of business. I have reviewed
the records of costs expended in this matter.
31. To date, Kazerouni Law Group has incurred $1,064.58 in travel and mediation
expenses related to the present action attached as Exhibit B. Hyde & Swigart
has incurred an additional $7,377.09, for a total of $8,441.67.
///
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 11 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.704 Page 11 of 13
REASONABLENESS OF HOURLY RATES
32. Kazerouni Law Group, APC’s hourly rates are reasonable in respect to the
ranges charged by comparable law firms in the State of California.
33. My hourly rate has increased over the course of time, and different rates have
been approved based on the complex or non-complex nature of the litigation.
In 2012, the Hon. Anthony K. Battaglia approved an hourly rate of $450 for
me in Sarabi v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., Case No. 10-
CV-1777-AJB, ECF. No. 42 (S.D. Cal. 2012). Thereafter, I was approved for
$545 in Lemieux v. EZ Lube, Inc. et al., 12-cv-01791-BAS-JLB (S.D. Cal.)
[ECF. No. 83]; Hoffman v. Bank of America, N.A., 12-cv-00539-JAH-DHB
(S.D. Cal.) [ECF. No. 67]; and Zaw v. Nelnet Business Solutions, Inc., 13-
cv-05788-RS (N. D. Cal.) [ECF. No. 39]. I was also approved for an hourly
rate of $550 in Couser v Apria Healthcare Inc. et al., 13-cv-00035-JVS-RNB
(C.D. Cal.). I have previously been approved for an hourly rate of $565 in
Sherman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 3:13-cv-00981-JAH-JMA,
Dkt. No. 58 (May 12, 2015) and Macias v. Water & Power Community Credit
Union, Case No. BC515936 (Los Angeles Superior Court, April 21, 2016),
and impliedly so in Fox v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 2:14-cv-00734-GW- FFM
(C.D. Cal. July 1, 2016).
34. Recently, I was approved for an hourly rate of $595 in an unpublished opinion
by the Court of Appeal of the State of California in William Mount, et al., v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. B260585 (Cal. Ct. App., Feb. 10, 2016). Most
recently I was approved for an hourly rate of $605 by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California in Muhammed Abdeljalil
v. G.E. Capital Retail Bank, Case No. 12-CV-02078-JAH-MDD (finding
“Plaintiffs’ counsels’ hourly rates to be fair and reasonable”) and $605.00 by
the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in Paul
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 12 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.705 Page 12 of 13
Stemple v. QC Holdings, Inc., 12-CV-01997-BAS-WVG (finding that a rate of
$605.0 per hour was reasonable as well as a 1.478 multiplier).
EXHIBITS
35. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the summary of fees
incurred documenting the hours Kazerouni Law Group, APC’s counsel has
incurred while litigating this matter. Counsel can provide detailed time sheets
upon request of the Court.
36. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true is a true and correct copy of and
accounting of Costs incurred by Kazerouni Law Group, APC in the
prosecution of this action.
37. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true is a true and correct copy of the
National Law Journal 2014 Billing Survey.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration
was executed on January 9, 2017.
By:/s/ Abbas Kazerounian Abbas Kazerounian
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Abbas Kazerounian - 13 of 13 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-3 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.706 Page 13 of 13
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT ATime Summaries
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In The Case Of
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
v.NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF
PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-4 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.707 Page 1 of 3
Description Attorney Rate Hours TotalJoshua B. Swigart $605.00 0.80 $484.00Abbas Kazerounian $605.00 0.00 $0.00David J. McGlothlin $450.00 0.00 $0.00Laila Thompson $350.00 3.30 $1,155.00Crosby S. Connolly $325.00 38.00 $12,350.00Jessica R. K. Dorman $375.00 17.00 $6,375.00Danny Horen $295.00 5.60 $1,652.00
Joshua B. Swigart $605.00 9.70 $5,868.50Abbas Kazerounian $605.00 1.70 $1,028.50David J. McGlothlin $450.00 15.00 $6,750.00Laila Thompson $350.00 0.00 $0.00Crosby S. Connolly $325.00 27.00 $8,775.00Jessica R. K. Dorman $375.00 10.00 $3,750.00Danny Horen $295.00 0.00 $0.00
Joshua B. Swigart $605.00 17.00 $10,285.00Abbas Kazerounian $605.00 6.80 $4,114.00David J. McGlothlin $450.00 0.00 $0.00Laila Thompson $350.00 0.00 $0.00Crosby S. Connolly $325.00 5.60 $1,820.00Jessica R. K. Dorman $375.00 3.50 $1,312.50Danny Horen $295.00 0.00 $0.00
Joshua B. Swigart $605.00 49.00 $29,645.00Abbas Kazerounian $605.00 4.10 $2,480.50David J. McGlothlin $450.00 10.00 $4,500.00Laila Thompson $350.00 0.00 $0.00Crosby S. Connolly $325.00 35.70 $11,602.50Jessica R. K. Dorman $375.00 31.00 $11,625.00Danny Horen $295.00 1.10 $324.50
Joshua B. Swigart $605.00 5.10 $3,085.50Abbas Kazerounian $605.00 0.50 $302.50David J. McGlothlin $450.00 1.30 $585.00Laila Thompson $350.00 1.40 $490.00Crosby S. Connolly $325.00 14.00 $4,550.00Jessica R. K. Dorman $375.00 7.60 $2,850.00Danny Horen $295.00 0.30 $88.50
CasePreparation,Drafting,Review,andFilingofComplaint
(11Complaints)
Research,Prepare,andAttendIn-person,andTelephonicMediationConferenceswith
SpecialMaster,Judgehoffman
Research,Draft,andfileMotionforPreliminaryapproval
Other:StatusReports,Notice,JointMotions,Etc.
Research,DraftandFilingofOppositiontoMotiontoDismiss
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-4 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.708 Page 2 of 3
Description Attorney Rate Hours Total
CasePreparation,Drafting,Review,andFilingofComplaint
(11Complaints)
Joshua B. Swigart $605.00 7.10 $4,295.50Abbas Kazerounian $605.00 0.80 $484.00David J. McGlothlin $450.00 0.00 $0.00Laila Thompson $350.00 0.00 $0.00Crosby S. Connolly $325.00 3.00 $975.00Jessica R. K. Dorman $375.00 8.30 $3,112.50Danny Horen $295.00 0.00 $0.00
Joshua B. Swigart $605.00 4.10 $2,480.50Abbas Kazerounian $605.00 2.00 $1,210.00David J. McGlothlin $450.00 0.00 $0.00Laila Thompson $350.00 0.00 $0.00Crosby S. Connolly $325.00 5.20 $1,690.00Jessica R. K. Dorman $375.00 21.00 $7,875.00Danny Horen $295.00 0.00 $0.00
Joshua B. Swigart $605.00 92.80 $56,144.00Abbas Kazerounian $605.00 15.90 $9,619.50David J. McGlothlin $450.00 26.30 $11,835.00Laila Thompson $350.00 4.70 $1,645.00Crosby S. Connolly $325.00 128.50 $41,762.50Jessica R. K. Dorman $375.00 98.40 $36,900.00Danny Horen $295.00 7.00 $2,065.00
373.60 159,971.00$
WorkwithClassAdministratortoIssueNoticeandAssociatedMatters,AswellasIssueswith
BKCourtandAG'sOffice
DraftandReviewMotionforAttorneysFees,Cost,and
IncentiveAward
Totals
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-4 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.709 Page 3 of 3
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT BCosts Report
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In The Case Of
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
v.NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF
PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-5 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.710 Page 1 of 6
Description CostFiling Fee $4,400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $550.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $1,330.00Courtesy Copy Costs $70.00Travel Fees $229.58Mediation Fees $1,670.00Parking Fees $32.00Overnight Mailing Costs $33.59Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $126.50Total Costs $8,441.67
Case CostsZoerb v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3 et al 2,627.60$ Parra et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3 et al 579.39$ Benoit et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4 et al 583.23$ Baxter v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3 et al 584.23$ Montry et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 et al 584.28$ Goret v. Law Offices of Patenadue & Felix, A.P.C. et al 583.42$ Goret v. Law Offices of Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. et al 575.86$ Benavente et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3 et al 581.37$ Alderman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-1 et al 581.21$ Mayhugh v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1 et al 580.52$ Toney v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 et al 580.56$ TOTAL 8,441.67$
Breakdown by Type of Expense
Breakdown by Case
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-5 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.711 Page 2 of 6
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $130.00Courtesy Copy Costs $70.00Travel Fees $229.58Mediation Fees $1,670.00Parking Fees $32.00Overnight Mailing Costs $33.59Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $12.43Total Costs $2,627.60
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $9.39Total Costs $579.39
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $13.23Total Costs $583.23
3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSCZoerb v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-3 et al
Parra et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3 et al3:14-cv-00475-BAS-KSC
Benoit et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4 et al3:14-cv-00522-BAS-KSC
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-5 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.712 Page 3 of 6
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $14.23Total Costs $584.23
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $14.28Total Costs $584.28
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $13.42Total Costs $583.42
Baxter v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3 et al3:14-cv-01049-BAS-KSC
Montry et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 et al3:14-cv-00519-BAS-KSC
Goret v. Law Offices of Patenadue & Felix, A.P.C. et al3:14-cv-00807-BAS-KSC
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-5 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.713 Page 4 of 6
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $5.86Total Costs $575.86
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $11.37Total Costs $581.37
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $11.21Total Costs $581.21
3:14-cv-00809-BAS-KSCGoret v. Law Offices of Patenaude & Felix, A.P.C. et al
Benavente et al v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-3 et al3:15-cv-01021-BAS-KSC
Alderman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-1 et al3:14-cv-01210-BAS-KSC
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-5 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.714 Page 5 of 6
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $10.52Total Costs $580.52
Description CostFiling Fee $400.00Service on Patenaude & Felix $50.00Service on National Collegiate Trust $120.00Courtesy Copy Costs $0.00Mediation Fees $0.00Parking Fees $0.00Overnight Mailing Costs $0.00Postage, Envelopes, & Printing $10.56Total Costs $580.56
Toney v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 et al3:14-cv-01321-BAS-KSC
Mayhugh v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1 et al3:14-cv-01208-BAS-KSC
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-5 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.715 Page 6 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT CNational Law Journal 2014 Billing Survey
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
In The Case Of
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED
v.NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF
PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.
Hyde & Swigart
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.716 Page 1 of 13
Location Firmwide Billing Rate High
Firmwide Billing Rate Low
Firmwide Billing Rate Med
Partner Billing Rate High
Partner Billing Rate Low
Partner Billing Rate Med
Associate Billing Rate High
Associate Billing Rate Low
Associate Billing Rate Med
NLJ Billing Source
Notes
New Orleans $595.00 $120.00 $320.00 $595.00 $275.00 $375.00 $305.00 $175.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Riverside, CA
$625.00 $225.00 $390.00 $625.00 $310.00 $435.00 $390.00 $225.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Chicago $835.00 $105.00 $385.00 $835.00 $325.00 $560.00 $460.00 $190.00 $325.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
St. Louis $795.00 $200.00 $480.00 $795.00 $390.00 $553.00 $550.00 $200.00 $373.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Detroit $750.00 $210.00 $313.00 $750.00 $290.00 $363.00 $425.00 $210.00 $234.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Philadelphia $970.00 $235.00 $440.00 $970.00 $320.00 $513.00 $575.00 $235.00 $345.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Detroit $585.00 $285.00 $280.00 $205.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Copyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Year Firm Name Average FTE Attorneys
2012 Adams and Reese 267
2012 Best Best & Krieger 191
2012 Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione
135
2012 Bryan Cave 884
2012 Butzel Long 140
2012 Cozen O'Connor 503
2012 Dickinson Wright 254
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 1 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.717 Page 2 of 13
Washington $1250.00 $210.00 $580.00 $1250.00 $560.00 $700.00 $570.00 $235.00 $460.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Cincinnati $650.00 $130.00 $310.00 $650.00 $180.00 $380.00 $325.00 $130.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
New York $1200.00 $105.00 $635.00 $1200.00 $550.00 $775.00 $760.00 $335.00 $530.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Minneapolis $835.00 $200.00 $410.00 $835.00 $305.00 $525.00 $420.00 $200.00 $275.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Chicago $685.00 $130.00 $415.00 $675.00 $395.00 $505.00 $465.00 $235.00 $305.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
New York $750.00 $215.00 $435.00 $750.00 $330.00 $535.00 $455.00 $215.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Atlanta $565.00 $215.00 $410.00 $565.00 $350.00 $430.00 $395.00 $215.00 $305.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Milwaukee $875.00 $200.00 $495.00 $875.00 $390.00 $570.00 $605.00 $200.00 $370.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Philadelphia $795.00 $200.00 $435.00 $760.00 $340.00 $500.00 $480.00 $200.00 $310.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Cincinnati $525.00 $150.00 $295.00 $525.00 $205.00 $350.00 $275.00 $150.00 $205.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Dallas $795.00 $230.00 $485.00 $795.00 $395.00 $565.00 $525.00 $235.00 $350.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Newark, NJ $815.00 $285.00 $450.00 $815.00 $395.00 $500.00 $450.00 $285.00 $320.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Rochester, NY
$625.00 $175.00 $350.00 $625.00 $285.00 $400.00 $350.00 $175.00 $250.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
2012 Dickstein Shapiro 343
2012 Dinsmore & Shohl 412
2012 DLA Piper 3746
2012 Dorsey & Whitney 531
2012 Dykema Gossett 331
2012 Epstein Becker & Green 275
2012 Fisher & Phillips 237
2012 Foley & Lardner 874
2012 Fox Rothschild 471
2012 Frost Brown Todd 393
2012 Gardere Wynne Sewell 242
2012 Gibbons 200
2012 Harris Beach 189
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 2 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.718 Page 3 of 13
Syracuse, NY
$650.00 $175.00 $361.00 $650.00 $235.00 $441.00 $275.00 $175.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Washington $1200.00 $230.00 $625.00 $1200.00 $545.00 $750.00 $655.00 $310.00 $465.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Denver $695.00 $180.00 $360.00 $695.00 $275.00 $420.00 $400.00 $180.00 $268.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Washington $985.00 $200.00 $490.00 $985.00 $315.00 $560.00 $575.00 $200.00 $310.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
St. Louis $890.00 $185.00 $355.00 $890.00 $240.00 $405.00 $445.00 $185.00 $235.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
New York $950.00 $285.00 $550.00 $950.00 $450.00 $660.00 $600.00 $285.00 $450.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Irvine, CA $760.00 $120.00 $380.00 $760.00 $425.00 $525.00 $420.00 $295.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Kansas City, MO
$595.00 $175.00 $355.00 $595.00 $285.00 $410.00 $385.00 $205.00 $245.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Phoenix $725.00 $225.00 $470.00 $725.00 $410.00 $520.00 $450.00 $225.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Dallas $1285.00 $265.00 $560.00 $1285.00 $455.00 $655.00 $600.00 $265.00 $400.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Oklahoma City
$500.00 $165.00 $335.00 $500.00 $250.00 $375.00 $265.00 $165.00 $215.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Cleveland $600.00 $185.00 $380.00 $595.00 $310.00 $440.00 $370.00 $185.00 $270.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Morristown, NJ
$575.00 $190.00 $300.00 $575.00 $300.00 $385.00 $325.00 $190.00 $255.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
2012 Hiscock & Barclay 165
2012 Hogan Lovells 2253
2012 Holland & Hart 394
2012 Holland & Knight 908
2012 Husch Blackwell 520
2012 Kelley Drye & Warren 303
2012 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
265
2012 Lathrop & Gage 290
2012 Lewis and Roca 183
2012 Locke Lord 540
2012 McAfee & Taft 183
2012 McDonald Hopkins 128
2012 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter
286
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 3 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.719 Page 4 of 13
Atlanta $830.00 $215.00 $455.00 $830.00 $375.00 $550.00 $560.00 $215.00 $395.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Milwaukee $650.00 $210.00 $380.00 $650.00 $245.00 $425.00 $350.00 $210.00 $265.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Baltimore $700.00 $230.00 $405.00 $700.00 $320.00 $460.00 $350.00 $230.00 $300.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Chattanooga, TN
$630.00 $180.00 $340.00 $630.00 $250.00 $385.00 $285.00 $185.00 $225.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Columbia, SC
$850.00 $80.00 $330.00 $850.00 $230.00 $420.00 $370.00 $160.00 $258.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Washington $990.00 $170.00 $550.00 $990.00 $425.00 $665.00 $570.00 $240.00 $435.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Seattle $910.00 $220.00 $485.00 $910.00 $290.00 $560.00 $605.00 $220.00 $365.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Kansas City, MO
$650.00 $210.00 $350.00 $650.00 $300.00 $390.00 $325.00 $210.00 $260.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Costa Mesa, CA
$650.00 $200.00 $650.00 $340.00 $425.00 $200.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Philadelphia $800.00 $225.00 $450.00 $800.00 $335.00 $500.00 $510.00 $225.00 $310.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
New York $995.00 $125.00 $605.00 $995.00 $785.00 $895.00 $705.00 $295.00 $585.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
San Francisco
$420.00 $157.00 $299.00 $587.00 $189.00 $361.00 $420.00 $157.00 $260.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Toledo, OH $570.00 $180.00 $375.00 $570.00 $280.00 $390.00 $325.00 $210.00 $255.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
2012 McKenna Long & Aldridge 424
2012 Michael Best & Friedrich 196
2012 Miles & Stockbridge 213
2012 Miller & Martin 169
2012 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough
414
2012 Patton Boggs 491
2012 Perkins Coie 747
2012 Polsinelli Shughart 503
2012 Rutan & Tucker 144
2012 Saul Ewing 219
2012 Schulte Roth & Zabel 371
2012 Sedgwick 343
2012 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick
219
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 4 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.720 Page 5 of 13
Miami $635.00 $190.00 $380.00 $635.00 $250.00 $415.00 $370.00 $190.00 $263.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Portland, OR $655.00 $200.00 $400.00 $655.00 $300.00 $463.00 $435.00 $200.00 $276.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Dallas $649.36 $189.65 $397.00 $649.00 $213.00 $402.00 $385.00 $190.00 $243.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Boston $900.00 $320.00 $570.00 $900.00 $500.00 $670.00 $540.00 $320.00 $430.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Dallas $900.00 $260.00 $530.00 $900.00 $440.00 $595.00 $480.00 $260.00 $365.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
St. Louis $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $330.00 $460.00 $200.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Cleveland, OH
$615.00 $195.00 $350.00 $615.00 $265.00 $420.00 $395.00 $195.00 $295.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
Dallas $645.00 $215.00 $410.00 $645.00 $375.00 $475.00 $425.00 $215.00 $320.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey
2012 Shutts & Bowen 212
2012 Stoel Rives 374
2012 Strasburger & Price 212
2012 Sullivan & Worcester 144
2012 Thompson & Knight 291
2012 Thompson Coburn 309
2012 Ulmer & Berne 178
2012 Winstead 258
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 5 888-770-5647
www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.721 Page 6 of 13
Location Partner Billing Rate High
Partner Billing Rate Low
Associate Billing Rate High
Associate Billing Rate Low
Associate Billing Rate Average
Partner Billing Rate Average
Firmwide Billing Rate Average
Associate Billing Rate Med
Partner Billing Rate Med
HoustonMemphis $595.00 $250.00 $315.00 $160.00 $228.00 $357.00 $311.00 225 345Riverside, CA $575.00 $275.00 $375.00 $205.00 $265.00 $417.00 $358.00 240 420BostonMinneapolis $625.00 $325.00 $305.00 $230.00Orlando $575.00 $295.00 $350.00 $180.00 $265.00 $435.00 $377.00 265 395St. Louis $795.00 $375.00 $540.00 $200.00 $356.00 $565.00 $475.00 360 553Detroit $700.00 $325.00 $425.00 $225.00 $274.00 $440.00New YorkTampa $815.00 $320.00 $380.00 $195.00 $262.00 $470.00 $397.00 265 470
Philadelphia $900.00 $305.00 $550.00 $225.00 $330.00 $510.00 $439.00 330 490
Parsippany $960.00 $380.00 $470.00 $235.00 $317.00 $537.00 $447.00 315 525
Detroit $600.00 $325.00 $320.00 $200.00
Washington $1000.00 $540.00 $545.00 $225.00 $435.00 $680.00 $560.00 465 670
Cincinnati $630.00 $150.00 $310.00 $130.00 $217.00 $373.00 $308.00 220 370
New York $1120.00 $530.00 $730.00 $320.00 $508.00 $747.00 $585.00 510 730
Minneapolis $810.00 $295.00 $465.00 $190.00 $294.00 $526.00 $426.00 275 525
Philadelphia $875.00 $375.00 $530.00 $225.00 $365.00 $575.00 $503.00 365 570
Detroit $665.00 $310.00 $395.00 $260.00 $309.00 $482.00 $406.00 305 485
New York $850.00 $350.00 $550.00 $195.00 $341.00 $519.00 $428.00 325 500
New York $730.00 $460.00 $440.00 $275.00 325 525
Atlanta
2011 Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto2011 Ford & Harrison
2011 Dykema Gossett2011 Epstein Becker & Green
2011 Dorsey & Whitney2011 Duane Morris
2011 Dinsmore & Shohl2011 DLA Piper
2011 Dickinson Wright2011 Dickstein Shapiro
2011 Cozen O'Connor2011 Day Pitney
2011 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft2011 Carlton Fields
2011 Bryan Cave2011 Butzel Long
2011 Briggs and Morgan2011 Broad and Cassel
2011 Best Best & Krieger2011 Bingham McCutchen
2011 Andrews Kurth2011 Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
2011 NLJ Billing SurveyCopyright © ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.
Fiscal Year
Firm Name
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 1
888-780-5647www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.722 Page 7 of 13
Philadelphia $725.00 $325.00 $455.00 $190.00 $297.00 $486.00 $413.00 295 483
Cincinnati $515.00 $205.00 $265.00 $150.00 $200.00 $340.00 $296.00 200 340
Dallas $815.00 $380.00 $500.00 $225.00 $325.00 $550.00 $435.00 320 550
Newark $725.00 $400.00 $475.00 $285.00 $380.00 $562.00 $505.00 320 505
Rochester $390.00 $275.00 $260.00 $160.00
Syracuse $750.00 $195.00 $350.00 $150.00 $207.00 $304.00 $269.00 195 265
Buffalo $685.00 $240.00 $420.00 $180.00 $234.00 $378.00 225 360
Washington $895.00 $300.00 $495.00 $175.00 $295.00 $530.00 $445.00 290 520
New York $990.00 $625.00 $695.00 $270.00 $533.00 $828.00 $633.00 540 800
Richmond
St. Louis $850.00 $225.00 $425.00 $175.00 $226.00 $395.00 $341.00 210 390
Charleston, WV $505.00 $255.00 $260.00 $155.00 $208.00 $319.00 $275.00 205 325
White Plains
New York $1080.00 $685.00 $705.00 $310.00 $519.00 $831.00 $661.00 525 835
New York $925.00 $480.00 $595.00 $275.00 $425.00 $634.00 $474.00 420 645
Irvine $735.00 $415.00 $495.00 $295.00 $346.00 $525.00 $439.00 345 500
Seattle $645.00 $340.00 $360.00 $225.00 $295.00 $460.00 $405.00 285 450
New York
Kansas City, MO $735.00 $275.00 $410.00 $205.00 $246.00 $390.00 $337.00 245 390
St. Louis $470.00 $270.00 $320.00 $150.00 $275.00
Roseland, NJ $895.00 $435.00 $660.00 $250.00 $400.00 $613.00 $478.00 390 595
Los Angeles $850.00 $540.00 $550.00 $215.00 $464.00 $676.00 $602.00 500 670
Morristown, NJ $575.00 $295.00 $325.00 $185.00 $250.00 $350.00 $245.00 235 375
Atlanta $800.00 $405.00 $510.00 $215.00 $374.00 $562.00 $472.00 375 540
Milwaukee $650.00 $245.00 $310.00 $205.00 $241.00 $413.00 $321.00
Chattanooga $610.00 $240.00 $275.00 $185.00 $215.00 $369.00 $313.00 215 375
Columbia, SC $850.00 $220.00 $350.00 $170.00 $255.00 $412.00 $318.00 250 400
Columbia, SC $550.00 $235.00 $265.00 $170.00
2011 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough2011 Nexsen Pruet
2011 Michael Best & Friedrich 2011 Miller & Martin
2011 McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter2011 McKenna Long & Aldridge
2011 Lowenstein Sandler2011 Manatt, Phelps & Phillips
2011 Lathrop & Gage2011 Lewis, Rice & Fingersh
2011 Lane Powell2011 Latham & Watkins
2011 Kelley Drye & Warren2011 Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
2011 Jackson Lewis2011 Kaye Scholer
2011 Husch Blackwell2011 Jackson Kelly
2011 Hughes Hubbard & Reed2011 Hunton & Williams
2011 Hodgson Russ2011 Holland & Knight
2011 Harris Beach2011 Hiscock & Barclay
2011 Gardere Wynne Sewell2011 Gibbons
2011 Fox Rothschild2011 Frost Brown Todd
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 2
888-780-5647www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.723 Page 8 of 13
San Francisco
Washington $990.00 $410.00 $570.00 $240.00 $410.00 $659.00 $546.00 415 645
Philadelphia $825.00 $380.00 $460.00 $235.00 $344.00 $557.00
Seattle $875.00 $285.00 $590.00 $215.00 $368.00 $550.00 $462.00 545
New Orleans $465.00 $190.00 $245.00 $150.00 $189.00 $281.00 $236.00 190 275
Kansas City, MO $630.00 $275.00 $335.00 $205.00
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia $750.00 $350.00 $495.00 $245.00 $326.00 $502.00 $431.00 300 490
New York $935.00 $770.00 $675.00 $285.00 $608.00 $846.00 $615.00 580 840
San Francisco
Chicago $790.00 $355.00 $505.00 $225.00 $341.00 $528.00 $437.00 340 525
Los Angeles $860.00 $505.00 $635.00 $275.00
Toledo $555.00 $265.00 $320.00 $195.00 $252.00 $364.00 $345.00 250 375
Washington
Portland, OR $625.00 $320.00 $500.00 $195.00 $292.00 $451.00 $385.00 275 450
Dallas $630.00 $211.00 $332.00 $199.00 $250.00 $395.00 $363.00 238 397
Dallas $875.00 $440.00 $460.00 $250.00 $358.00 $594.00 $520.00 350 585
St. Louis $750.00 $315.00 $445.00 $195.00
Cleveland $585.00 $280.00 $390.00 $200.00 $260.00 $405.00 $316.00
Chicago $735.00 $295.00 $520.00 $265.00 $345.00 $500.00 $445.00 335 490
Philadelphia
Washington
Washington
Dallas $680.00 $365.00 $410.00 $215.00 $301.00 $477.00 $406.00
Chicago $1130.00 $580.00 $600.00 $350.00 $434.00 $713.00 $557.00 413 700
Louisville $500.00 $240.00 $275.00 $180.00 $220.00 $325.00 $312.00 235 375
2011 Winston & Strawn2011 Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs
2011 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr2011 Winstead
2011 White and Williams2011 Wiley Rein
2011 Ulmer & Berne2011 Vedder Price
2011 Thompson & Knight2011 Thompson Coburn
2011 Stoel Rives2011 Strasburger & Price
2011 Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick2011 Steptoe & Johnson LLP
2011 Seyfarth Shaw2011 Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
2011 Schulte Roth & Zabel2011 Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold
2011 Reed Smith2011 Saul Ewing
2011 Phelps Dunbar2011 Polsinelli Shughart
2011 Pepper Hamilton2011 Perkins Coie
2011 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe2011 Patton Boggs
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 3
888-780-5647www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.724 Page 9 of 13
Firmwide Billing Rate Med
Annual billable hours requirement
Variation on the billable hour
Percentage of your firm's revenue is obtained through variations on the billable hour (%)
Firm Billing Alternatives Percentage of your firm's revenue is obtained via alternative billing (%)
NLJ Billing Source
78 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011310 5 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011360 25 7 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
5 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 201190 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
350 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011460 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
24 8 National Law Journal, December 19, 201127 25 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
400 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
410 21 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
450 46 7 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
550 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
295 49 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
615 95 4 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
405 5 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
500 5 6 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
400 84 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
425 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
24 9 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
Notes
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 4
888-780-5647www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.725 Page 10 of 13
420 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
295 74 3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
450 15 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
450 20 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
240 46 21 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
22 4 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
455 9 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
615 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
12 7 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
340 95 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
275 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
95 13 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
665 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
400 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
415 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
425 50 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
340 80 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
480 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
620 82 12 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
275 15 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
455 20 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
310 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
325 10 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
310 5 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 5
888-780-5647www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.726 Page 11 of 13
30 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
540 15 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
10 17 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
225 2 2 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
15 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
5 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
450 40 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
630 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
16 1 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
425 83 17 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
15 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
365 10 5 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
16 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
395 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
362 80 20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
520 30 3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
45 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
445 10 3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
20 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
35 4 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
50 15 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
10 3 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
550 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
350 30 10 National Law Journal, December 19, 2011
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 6
888-780-5647www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.727 Page 12 of 13
Copyright 2011 ALM Media properties, LLC. All rights reserved. 10
888-780-5647www.alm.com
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-6 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.728 Page 13 of 13
HYDE & SWIGARTJoshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)[email protected] S. Connolly, Esq. (SBN: 286650)[email protected] Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101San Diego, CA 92108Telephone: (619) 233-7770Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APCAbbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)[email protected] Fischer Avenue, Unit D1Costa Mesa, CA 92626Telephone: (800) 400-6808Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Attorneys for Dawn Zoerb and the settlement class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Crosby S. Connolly - 1 of 4 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff,v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.,
Defendants.
Case No: 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
DECLARATION OF CROSBY S. CONNOLLY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Date: April 3, 2017Time: 10:30 A.M.Courtroom: 4B
Judge: Hon. Cynthia Bashant
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-7 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.729 Page 1 of 4
DECLARATION OF CROSBY S. CONNOLLY
I, CROSBY S. CONNOLLY, declare:
1. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, and pursuant to the laws of the State
of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
2. I am one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff DAWN ZOERB (“ZOERB”) in this
action. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs1 in compliance with Plaintiffs’ settlement with Defendants
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A
DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S) (“DEFENDANT TRUSTS”), and the
LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C. (“P&F”), collectively,
(“DEFENDANTS”), in the above captioned action for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.; and the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq.
3. I am an associate of the law firm of Hyde & Swigart and a counsel of record
for Plaintiff Dawn Zoerb (“Plaintiff”) in this matter. I am admitted to this
Court and am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. I
have been involved in every aspect of this case from inception through the
present.
4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if called upon as a
witness, could and would competently testify thereto, except as to those
matters which are explicitly set forth as based upon my information and belief
and, as to such matters, I am informed and believe they are true and correct.
5. In the interest of judicial economy, I incorporate by reference ¶¶ 5-15 of the
Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart as if fully stated herein. Said paragraphs
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Crosby S. Connolly - 2 of 4 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1 Plaintiffs’ Counsel is filing the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs early, pursuant to In Re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs Counsel anticipates they will spend additional hours addressing any objections to the Settlement, preparing papers for final approval, traveling to and attending the final approval hearing, and continuing to oversee the settlement administration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-7 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.730 Page 2 of 4
detail the litigation history, an explanation of the class, the adequacy of the
settlement and risks of continued litigation. I agree with each and every one
of these paragraphs.
EXPERIENCE OF CROSBY S. CONNOLLY AND HYDE & SWIGART AS WELL AS
HOURLY RATES
6. I have filed and litigated a substantial number of individual and class action
cases pursuant to the FDCPA and the RFDCPA.
7. I have undergone extensive training in the area of the FDCPA and the
RFDCPA. Most recently, I attended a three-day National Association of
Consumer Advocates conference in Baltimore, Maryland.
8. In the matter of Antwan Shelton, Jr. v. Clear Credit Solutions, LLC, Case No.
5:14-CV-00994-JFW-E, filed in the Central District of California, as part of a
Default Judgment filed against the Defendant, Judge John F. Walter found my
hourly rate of $295.00 to be reasonable, and awarded Plaintiff attorney’s fees
based on my hourly rate of $295.
9. In the matter of Michael Fischer v. The Gold Group, Inc., Case No. 3:14-
CGV-00561-W-JMA, filed in the Southern District of California, as part of a
Default Judgment filed against the Defendant, Judge Thomas J. Whelan found
my hourly rate of $295.00 to be reasonable, and awarded Plaintiff attorney’s
fees based on my hourly rate of $295.
10. In the matter of Pilar Grammer v. Platinum Partners & Associates, Case No.
3:13-CV-02810-W-RBB, filed in the Southern District of California, as part of
a Default Judgment filed against the Defendant, Judge Thomas J. Whelan
found my hourly rate of $295.00 to be reasonable, and awarded Plaintiff
attorney’s fees based on my hourly rate of $295.
11. In the matter of Nicole Lyon v. Bergstrom Law, LTD., Case No. 1:16-
cv-00401-DAD-SKO, filed in the Eastern District of California, as part of a
Motion for Attorneys Fees and Sanctions for failure to timely provide
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Crosby S. Connolly - 3 of 4 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-7 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.731 Page 3 of 4
discovery responses, Judge Sheila K. Oberto found my hourly rate of $325.00
to be reasonable, and awarded Plaintiff attorney’s fees based on my hourly
rate of $295.
12. I am currently requesting an hourly rate of $325.00 an hour, compensating for
the experience gained, training and research conducted, and my familiarity
with Federal and California state law and this Court’s local rules over the last
four years.
13. Therefore, my firm’s experience and years in practice, taken with the current
legal market rates, are sufficient to justify my hourly rate of $325.00 in this
case.
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS INCURRED
14. My current hourly rate for litigation is $325.00 per hour.
15. Filed concurrently with Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is a
summary of fees incurred and Cost Report, which details the fees and costs
incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel in pursuing this matter. See Exhibit A & B.
16. I used reasonable billing discretion throughout this case.
17. The following is a summary of the hourly rates and attorneys’ fees that I
incurred in the successful prosecution of this case:
a. I worked a total of 128.5 hours on this case at a rate of $325.00 per hour;
b. The costs and expenses incurred in this case are $8,441.67. See Exhibit B.
18. I declare under the penalty and perjury under the laws of the State of
California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: January 9, 2017 /s/ Crosby S. Connolly Crosby S. Connolly
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Crosby S. Connolly - 4 of 4 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-7 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.732 Page 4 of 4
HYDE & SWIGARTJoshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)[email protected] S. Connolly, Esq. (SBN: 286650)[email protected] Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101San Diego, CA 92108Telephone: (619) 233-7770Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APCAbbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)[email protected] Fischer Avenue, Unit D1Costa Mesa, CA 92626Telephone: (800) 400-6808Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Attorneys for Dawn Zoerb and the settlement class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Jessica R. K. Dorman - 1 of 5 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
DAWN ZOERB, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff,v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S); AND LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C.,
Defendants.
Case No: 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC
DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. K. DORMAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS
Date: April 3, 2017Time: 10:30 A.M.Courtroom: 4B
Judge: Hon. Cynthia Bashant
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-8 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.733 Page 1 of 5
DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. K. DORMAN
I, JESSICA R. K. DORMAN, declare:
1. I hereby declare under penalty of perjury, and pursuant to the laws of the State
of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
2. I am one of the attorneys for the Plaintiff DAWN ZOERB (“ZOERB”) in this
action. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees
and Costs1 in compliance with Plaintiffs’ settlement with Defendants
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2006-3, A
DELAWARE STATUTORY TRUST(S) (“DEFENDANT TRUSTS”), and the
LAW OFFICE OF PATENAUDE AND FELIX, A.P.C. (“P&F”), collectively,
(“DEFENDANTS”), in the above captioned action for violations of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.; and the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq.
3. I am an associate of the law firm of Hyde & Swigart and a counsel of record
for Plaintiff Dawn Zoerb (“Plaintiff”) in this matter. I am admitted to this
Court and am a member in good standing of the State Bar of California. I
have been involved in every aspect of this case from inception through the
present.
4. I have personal knowledge of the following facts and, if called upon as a
witness, could and would competently testify thereto, except as to those
matters which are explicitly set forth as based upon my information and belief
and, as to such matters, I am informed and believe they are true and correct.
5. In the interest of judicial economy, I incorporate by reference ¶¶ 5-15 of the
Declaration of Joshua B. Swigart as if fully stated herein. Said paragraphs
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Jessica R. K. Dorman - 2 of 5 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1 Plaintiffs’ Counsel is filing the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs early, pursuant to In Re Mercury Interactive Corp. Securities Litigation, 618 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiffs Counsel anticipates they will spend additional hours addressing any objections to the Settlement, preparing papers for final approval, traveling to and attending the final approval hearing, and continuing to oversee the settlement administration.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-8 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.734 Page 2 of 5
detail the litigation history, an explanation of the class, the adequacy of the
settlement and risks of continued litigation. I agree with each and every one
of these paragraphs.
EXPERIENCE OF JESSICA R. K. DORMAN AND HYDE & SWIGART AS WELL AS
HOURLY RATES
6. I have filed and litigated a substantial number of cases pursuant to the
FDCPA and the RFDCPA.
7. I was admitted to the California State Bar in December of 2011, and have
practiced consumer law, exclusively on the consumer side, since February of
2012.
8. I regularly represent consumers in state and federal courts across California
defending debt collection actions on behalf of consumers as well as aiding
consumers in asserting their rights against abusive companies under the
FDCPA, California Rosenthal Act, Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA),
The Telephone consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as well as several other
California consumer protection statues.
9. I have undergone extensive training in the area of the consumer law, including
a three-day National Association of Consumer Advocates conference in
Baltimore, Maryland, and several seminars on consumer areas of law.
10. I am also a member in good standing of the following local and national
associations:
a. San Diego County Bar Association;
b. Lawyers Club of San Diego; and
c. Federal Bar Association of San Diego.
11. My admission to the State Bar of Illinois is currently pending and is expected
to be approved in the coming months.
12. Additionally, I have had occasion to practice via pro hoc admission in the
State of New York.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Jessica R. K. Dorman - 3 of 5 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-8 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.735 Page 3 of 5
13. I have been requested to, and have made, regular presentations to community
organizations regarding debt collection laws, and other consumer laws. The
following are a few examples of such presentations:
a. Elder Law and Advocacy; 2013
b. San Diego County Bar Association, Bankruptcy Section; 2014
c. California Western School of Law, 2014;
d. California Western School of Law Consumer Rights Workshop, 2015;
and
e. Keller Williams Realty (“Credit Reporting and the FCRA”), 2015.
f. Presentation to Leaders of Price Charities regarding Credit Reporting,
June 2016
14. I have also been a guest on Real Talk San Diego, a local radio program, to
discuss common consumer law issues on September 15, 2015.
15. I have previously been approved at the rate of $295.00 per hour by District
Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo in Perez v. Ruben & Rosenthal, Inc. 3:13-
cv-01024-CAB-RBB on April 14, 2014, and by District Judge William Q.
Hayes in Harley v. MD Collections, 13-cv-525-WQH-DHB on November 25,
2013.
16. Most recently, I was appointed as Class Counsel in Scheuerman v. Vitamin
Shoppe2 and expect to be approved at the rate of $345.00.
17. I am currently requesting an hourly rate of $375 an hour, compensating for
the experience gained, training and research conducted, and my familiarity
with Federal and California state law and this Court’s local rules over the last
five years.
18. Therefore, my firm’s experience and years in practice, taken with the current
legal market rates, are sufficient to justify my hourly rate of $375.00 in this
case.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Jessica R. K. Dorman - 4 of 5 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
2 Los Angeles Superior Court, BC592773
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-8 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.736 Page 4 of 5
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS INCURRED
19. My current hourly rate for litigation is $375.00 per hour.
20. Filed concurrently with Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is a
summary of fees incurred and Cost Report, which details the fees and costs
incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel in pursuing this matter. See Exhibit A & B.
21. I used reasonable billing discretion throughout this case.
22. The following is a summary of the hourly rates and attorneys’ fees that I
incurred in the successful prosecution of this case:
a. I worked a total of 98.4 hours on this case at a rate of $375.00 per hour;
b. The costs and expenses incurred in this case are $8,441.67. See Exhibit B.
23. I declare under the penalty and perjury under the laws of the State of
California, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date: January 9, 2017 /s/ Jessica R. K. Dorman Jessica R. K. Dorman
______________________________________________________________________________________________________Declaration of Jessica R. K. Dorman - 5 of 5 - Case No. 3-14-CV-004568-BAS-KSC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HY
DE
& S
WIG
AR
TSa
n D
iego
, Cal
iforn
ia
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-8 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.737 Page 5 of 5
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-9 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.738 Page 1 of 2
Case 3:14-cv-00468-BAS-KSC Document 47-9 Filed 01/09/17 PageID.739 Page 2 of 2