No. 24-1373 ___________________________

Lisa Woodward; Peter Woodward

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Credit Service International Corporation; Richard Muske

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: October 22, 2024 Filed: March 24, 2025 ____________ Before LOKEN, SMITH, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

In May 2016, Lisa and Peter Woodward incurred a $2,214.44 debt for their child’s dental care at Southhill Dental Group (“Southhill”). In May 2017, Southhill placed the unpaid obligation with Credit Service International Corporation (“CSIC”) for collection. In February 2022, CSIC filed a claim against the Woodwards in Washington County conciliation court. The Woodwards received no notice of the claim because CSIC sent the summons to the Woodwards’ previous home address. After CSIC obtained a default judgment for $2,880.81, CSIC attorney Richard Muske sent a letter to the Woodwards advising that CSIC intended to garnish their wages to collect the default judgment. The Woodwards did not respond and Muske sent a garnishment summons to their employer, listing an unpaid balance of $2,920.81.

The Woodwards hired attorney Kevin Giebel who filed this lawsuit in state court, claiming that CSIC and Muske violated Minnesota garnishment laws and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. CSIC and Muske removed the case to federal court and served an offer of judgment for $2,002.00 plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68. The Woodwards accepted the offer and, after judgment was entered, filed a Rule 54(d) motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs “in the current amount” of $26,205.00, which defendants opposed in part. On January 22, 2024, the district court1 issued an order granting the motion in part, awarding attorney Giebel $12,075.00 of the final $29,139.00 he sought. In a January 29 letter, the Woodwards requested permission to file a motion for reconsideration, as District of Minnesota Local Rule 7.1(j) requires. The court denied the request. The Woodwards appeal. We affirm.

I. Procedural History

After the Woodwards’ employer received the garnishment summons, Giebel contacted CSIC attorney Muske and explained that the conciliation court judgment should be voided because the Woodwards did not receive service. Muske agreed to withdraw the garnishment summons and void the conciliation court judgment. Consistent with his practice, Giebel then filed this FDCPA action in state court, knowing that CSIC had committed an indefensible FDCPA violation in obtaining the default judgment and would likely seek a quick settlement to avoid litigation expense.

1 The Honorable Katherine M. Menendez, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2- After removing the case to federal court, counsel for CSIC and Muske served a Rule 68 offer of judgment and filed a notice that the Woodwards accepted the offer on May 4, 2023. The offer contained the following terms:

1. Judgment shall be entered in the total amount of . . . [$2,002.00] in favor of Plaintiffs Lisa and Peter Woodward, collectively, as against [CSIC] and Richard Muske . . . .

2. In addition, Plaintiffs Lisa and Peter Woodward’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with Plaintiffs Lisa and Peter Woodward’s