Cooper v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.

Dist. Ct. abused its discretion in awarding plaintiff attorney’s fees as prevailing party in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) claim, under circumstances where plaintiff sought over $66,000 in attorney’s fees and costs, and where Dist. Ct. awarded less than $8,000 in fees and costs, based on fact that: (1) plaintiff had rejected defendant’s $500 oral offer to settle case at early stage of litigation; (2) plaintiff received only $500 statutory award; and (3) Dist. Ct. did not award plaintiff’s counsel any money for fees incurred after plaintiff had rejected oral settlement offer. While defendant’s $500 oral settlement offer was “substantial settlement offer” in light of fact that plaintiff only received $500 statutory damages award, Dist. Ct. could not treat said offer as if it were Rule 68 settlement offer, where defendant did not comply with all requirements of Rule 68. As such, Dist. Ct. could not deny all fees for post-offer attorney work. On remand, Dist. Ct. should determine fee award in light of goal of using fee awards as incentive to plaintiffs to bring action enforcing rights of public, where small nature of maximum statutory award, i.e., $1,000, in instant FDCPA claim should not be barrier to plaintiff receiving reasonable attorney’s fee.