Waite v. Clark County Collection Service, LLC

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I join the disposition, with one very small exception: I would disapprove, as an abuse of discretion, the reduction of the hours Tsai spent preparing the fee petition to one hour.

In my experience, no lawyer could competently and accurately draft an initial fee request, however routine, in one hour, with a template or without, and with review by others or without. Filing a fee request requires checking local case law as to rates for comparable counsel; reviewing the hours spent and making billing judgment ■ decisions; and collecting information on and explaining the professional background of the various billing lawyers and paralegals. To suggest all this should have been done in an hour is to encourage the filing of sloppy, unchecked work, which is not in the interest of the client, the courts, or opposing counsel. When the total number of hours billed for preparing the document was under five, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the reason for the reduction was the district court’s overall disapproval of the Lemberg firm’s manner of representation in Nevada, rather than a dispassionate determination of the appropriateness of the…

MEMORANDUM *

Noel Waite prevailed in her underlying action against Clark County Collection Service, LLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Waite appeals from the district court’s orders granting in part and denying in part her motion for attorneys’ fees, denying her motion for sanctions, and granting in part and denying in part CCCS’s motion for attorneys’ fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

A prevailing plaintiff in an FDCPA action is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Where, as here, one of the plaintiffs attorneys was. not admitted to practice in the forum district and did not seek pro hac vice admission, the plaintiff may still recover fees for work performed by that attorney so long as the attorney did not “appear” in the action. See Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir.2009). An attorney who does not physically appear in court, sign pleadings, or serve as the exclusive contact with the client or opposing counsel has not appeared. Id. at 825 .

The district court ruled that Waite was not entitled to fees for work performed by her unadmitted,…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 26 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

NOEL WAITE, Nos. 13-15143, 13-16125

Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01741-LRH-

VCF

v.

CLARK COUNTY COLLECTION MEMORANDUM*

SERVICE, LLC,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 12, 2015 San Francisco, California

Before: BERZON, BYBEE, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Noel Waite prevailed in her underlying action against Clark County

Collection Service, LLC under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Waite

appeals from the district court’s orders granting in part and denying in part her

motion for attorneys’ fees, denying her motion for sanctions, and granting in part

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. and denying in part CCCS’s motion for attorneys’ fees. We affirm in part, reverse

in part, and…