From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fitzgerald v. Law Office of Curtis O. Barnes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 6, 2013
1:12-cv-00071 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2013)

Summary

finding Lafffey Matrix to be "irrelevant to determining reasonable hourly rates for" counsel in the forum of the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division

Summary of this case from Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Albright

Opinion

1:12-cv-00071 LJO GSA

05-06-2013

BREANN FITZGERALD, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF CURTIS O. BARNES Defendant.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE:

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'

FEES


(Document 26)

On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff Breann Fitzgerald ("Plaintiff") filed this action against Defendant The Law Office of Curtis O. Barnes ("Defendant"), for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788, et seq. On September 10, 2012, Defendant served Plaintiff's counsel with an Offer of Judgment pursuant to Rule 68, F. R. Civ. P., of $1,001.00 on Plaintiff's claims, plus court costs and attorneys' fees as determined by the parties or the court. (Doc. 12-1). Plaintiff accepted Defendant's Offer of Judgment and filed a Notice of Acceptance of Rule 68 Offer of Judgment. (Doc. 12). The parties were unable to reach agreement on the issue of attorneys' fees, and Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to Offer of Judgment. (Doc. 13).

On April 15, 2013, Magistrate Judge Gary Austin recommended that Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees be GRANTED IN PART. Judge Austin's Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen days (14) days. To date, no party has filed any objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the matter. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated April 15, 2013 (Doc. 26), are ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2. Plaintiff is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $4,400.00 and costs in the amount of $410.90, for a total award of $4,810.90.

This action is now concluded in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Fitzgerald v. Law Office of Curtis O. Barnes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 6, 2013
1:12-cv-00071 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2013)

finding Lafffey Matrix to be "irrelevant to determining reasonable hourly rates for" counsel in the forum of the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division

Summary of this case from Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Albright

awarding attorney with one year of experience $200.00 per hour

Summary of this case from Juarez v. Villafan

awarding attorney with one year of experience $200.00 per hour

Summary of this case from Roach v. Tate Publ'g & Enters.

awarding attorney with one year of experience $200.00 per hour

Summary of this case from BMO Harris Bank N.A. v. Singh

awarding attorney with one year of experience $200.00 per hour

Summary of this case from In re Wage
Case details for

Fitzgerald v. Law Office of Curtis O. Barnes

Case Details

Full title:BREANN FITZGERALD, Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF CURTIS O. BARNES Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: May 6, 2013

Citations

1:12-cv-00071 LJO GSA (E.D. Cal. May. 6, 2013)

Citing Cases

Roach v. Tate Publ'g & Enters.

00 per hour. See Miller, 2014 WL 642729, at *2 (awarding $125.00 per hour for attorney with nine months of…

Lema v. Inn

The Laffey Matrix is inapplicable to the determination of market rates in both the Ninth Circuit and the…