No. 23-1142 ___________________________

Adrianna Beckler

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Rent Recovery Solutions, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

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

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Filed: October 5, 2023 ____________ Before LOKEN, ERICKSON, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge.

In May 2021, debt collector Rent Recovery Solutions (“RRS”) called Adrianna Beckler to collect an alleged $900 debt to her former landlord. Beckler said she disputed the debt and asked RRS to send written documentation to support the claim. In June, without sending the documents to Beckler, RRS reported her debt to TransUnion, a credit reporting agency, failing to tell TransUnion that the debt was disputed. Beckler commenced this action against RRS, alleging that it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by failing to provide requested documents, reporting the debt to TransUnion without providing the documents, and failing to tell Trans Union the debt was disputed. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692g(a) and (b), 1692e(8). Beckler sought actual damages, $1,000 in statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. See §§ 1692k(a)(1), (a)(2)(A), (a)(3). RRS answered the Complaint and promptly made an offer of judgment for $2,000 plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, which Beckler accepted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 68(a).

Beckler requested an award of $18,810 in attorneys’ fees for work by two attorneys and a paralegal. RRS challenged the fees requested by both attorneys, who submitted sworn declarations and detailed billing records. The district court,1 applying the lodestar method of calculating an attorney fee award, found that the attorneys’ claimed hourly rates were reasonable but the hours expended on the case were excessive. The court reduced the claimed attorney hours by fifty percent, exclusive of paralegal work, and awarded Beckler $9,480 in attorneys’ fees. Beckler appeals. Reviewing the district court’s award for abuse of discretion, we affirm. See Miller v. Dugan, 764 F.3d 826, 830 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review).

Beckler’s attorneys accuse the district court of departing from the lodestar calculation by imposing a “cap” that violates FDCPA policies and deprives counsel of full compensation for bringing consumer enforcement actions under this complex federal statute. We disagree.

“The starting point for determining attorneys’ fees is the ‘lodestar,’ which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours reasonably expended by the reasonable hourly rate.” Orduno v. Pietrzak, 932 F.3d 710, 719 (8th Cir. 2019). The district court must “exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or

1 The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2- otherwise unnecessary.” Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434 (1983). That is what the district court carefully did in this case.

The court began by thoroughly reviewing the question of attorney hourly rates, finding “that the claimed hourly rates are reasonable and consistent with the rates in this community for similar services by lawyers of comparable experience.” It then conducted a detailed review of hours performed on specific tasks by the two attorneys, concluding that many hours spent on pre-complaint research and communicating with each other and the client were excessive or redunda