Paz v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC

Dist. Ct. did not err in awarding plaintiff’s counsel $10,875 in attorney fees, where plaintiff prevailed in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, even though plaintiff’s counsel sought $187,410 in said fees. Record showed that plaintiff was awarded only $1,000 in damages on said claim, and that defendants had prevailed in lion’s share of plaintiff’s other claims, and that plaintiff had disregarded multiple offers to settle case both at outset of action and after defendant had prevailed on summary judgment. Dist. Ct. could also look to fact that defendant had initially offered to settle case for $3,501 plus reasonable fees when determining reasonableness of instant fee request. Moreover, $3,501 plus fees offer was reasonable, where it was more than three times maximum statutory damages that plaintiff could receive, and Dist. Ct. could conclude that vast majority of fees requested by plaintiff’s counsel was for time spent on pursuing unsuccessful and ill-advised efforts to win much bigger payoff than what was remotely possible.