Hon. Cynthia Bashant · Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557) [email protected] Crosby S. Connolly, Esq. (SBN: 286650) [email protected] 2221 Camino Del Rio

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

mailto:[email protected]






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





______________________________________________________________________________________________________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


Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, COSTS



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


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


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



(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



(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



(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



(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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.

///

///


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


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.”


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


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.”).

///


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


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


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


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).

///


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.

///


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


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


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


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.

///

///


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.

///

///


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


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


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


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


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






______________________________________________________________________________________________________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


Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF JOSHUA B. SWIGART, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS










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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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);


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


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;


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


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;


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


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


common fund in the amount of $2,600,000. Finally approved on

November 6, 2014);


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


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


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);


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


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);


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


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).

///

//


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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






______________________________________________________________________________________________________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


Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF ABBAS KAZEROUNIAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS










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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.);


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


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,


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


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


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


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


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


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.

///


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT BCosts Report

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

In The Case Of





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


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


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





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





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




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


PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT CNational Law Journal 2014 Billing Survey

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

In The Case Of




Hyde & Swigart


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


jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

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


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


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


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


www.alm.com


Syracuse, NY



Denver $695.00 $180.00 $360.00 $695.00 $275.00 $420.00 $400.00 $180.00 $268.00 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


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


Phoenix $725.00 $225.00 $470.00 $725.00 $410.00 $520.00 $450.00 $225.00 $330.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey


Oklahoma City


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


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


www.alm.com


jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

jasonibey

Highlight

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


Columbia, SC



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


Costa Mesa, CA

$650.00 $200.00 $650.00 $340.00 $425.00 $200.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey



San Francisco


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


www.alm.com


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


Boston $900.00 $320.00 $570.00 $900.00 $500.00 $670.00 $540.00 $320.00 $430.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey


St. Louis $750.00 $200.00 $750.00 $330.00 $460.00 $200.00 2012 NLJ Billing Survey

Cleveland, OH



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


www.alm.com


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


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


888-780-5647www.alm.com


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


888-780-5647www.alm.com


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










Notes


888-780-5647www.alm.com































888-780-5647www.alm.com





























888-780-5647www.alm.com



888-780-5647www.alm.com






______________________________________________________________________________________________________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


Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF CROSBY S. CONNOLLY, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS










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.










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.









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





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


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


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


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






______________________________________________________________________________________________________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


Plaintiff,v.


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF JESSICA R. K. DORMAN, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS










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.










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.









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





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.


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


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.


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


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


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




Documents

Hon. Cynthia Bashant · Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557) [email protected] Crosby S. Connolly, Esq. (SBN: 286650) [email protected] 2221 Camino Del Rio