The Fifth Circuit (New Orleans, LA) Opines
“Reading the FDCPA as requiring attorney’s fees to be paid in actions where the plaintiff fails to prove damages, rewards lawyers for bringing suits to stop behavior that, by definition, has caused legal injury to no one.
Our interpretation of the statute will require attorneys to look for more than a technical violation of the FDCPA before bringing suit and will deter suits brought only as a means of generating attorney’s fees.”
Although complete denial of otherwise generally mandatory attorney’s fees is a rare and drastic sanction, the outrageous facts in this case suggest that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Davis was not entitled to attorney’s fees, or that the reasonable attorney’s fee was $0.
The district court calculated a reasonable hourly rate to be, at most, $225 (half of the $450 demanded), which can further be reduced based on the poor draftsmanship that permeates the pleadings.
The district court cited valid, precedentially-supported reasons for reducing the number of hours and amount of the fee award claimed by Davis’ attorneys.
Moreover, given the district court’s desire to “disincentivize the conduct of Plaintiff’s counsel,” coupled with an additional, punitive reduction (or outright denial) for McCarty and Raburn’s exorbitant fee request, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to deny Davis’ motion for attorney’s fees.