While a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act suit was dismissed against a collection agency, the company didn’t win attorneys' fees.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom denied Pollack and Rosen, P.A.’s motion for attorneys’ fees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 17.
Pollack and Rosen, along with defendant David Kaminski, requested $1,022.50 in attorneys' fees after the court dismissed Manuel E. Rivas’ lawsuit, claiming the defendants violated the FDCPA when it attempted to collect a debt from Rivas’ credit card.
“Plaintiff has correctly argued – and defendants have not refuted – that a plaintiff’s failure to accept an offer of judgment under Rule 68 shifts costs, not attorney’s fees,” Judge Bloom wrote.
She pointed out that even though the defendants did serve the plaintiffs with the motion on Jan. 2, the document didn’t include an attorney verification or any proof that backed the plaintiff’s counsel. They then allegedly responded to the plaintiff’s lawyer’s petition for the completed documents with issuing even more absent details. Since the motion wasn’t correctly confirmed by the lawyer at the time of serving, the defendants didn’t properly file it in a timely manner, so they aren’t owed attorney’s fees, Judge Bloom ruled.
She added, “While there are certain statutes that authorize fees to be included within the. meaning of ‘costs,' the FDCPA does not include fees wit the scope of ‘costs’ and defendants were alerted to this before they filed the motion.”
The court also disagreed with the defendants’ argument that Fla. Stat. section 768.79 doesn’t apply.
“The court finds that the motion is not grounded in an objective legal basis and that defendants’ counsel was aware of the motion’s deficiencies before filing it,” Judge Bloom wrote.