[hannah]

Interesting case out of Massachusetts...gotta watch those settlement offers...

A jury awarded a plaintiff statutory damages on a FDCPA claim and the judge awarded counsel fees of $2,500. The counsel fee amount was not improperly low considering the plaintiff's modest success on the merits.

"David and Tammy French sued Corporate Receivables, Inc. and its employee, Eric Turner, under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sect. 1692 et seq., and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, challenging Corporate Receivables' and Turner's abusive collection practices in an effort to collect monies that David French owed on a motorcycle. Prior to trial, the defendants made two offers of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, which the Frenches rejected. The first offer was for $2,500 and the second offer was for $3,900.

"The Frenches' FDCPA claim was ultimately tried before a jury, and the district court decided the ch. 93A claim. The jury returned a verdict of $1,000 in statutory damages for David French and $0 for Tammy French. The court then concluded that the defendants had violated ch. 93A and awarded David French an additional $1,000 and Tammy French $25.

"Subsequently, the Frenches moved for an award of attorney's fees of $20,660 and costs of $2,059.33 under the FDCPA's and ch. 93A's fee-shifting provisions. ... The defendants opposed the motion on the ground that the second Rule 68 offer of $3,900 exceeded the amount of the post-trial award and therefore cut-off the Frenches' entitlement to fees. See Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1 (1985). In a written order, the district court declined to reduce the Frenches' fee request under Marek because it was not clear that the second Rule 68 offer was larger than the award plus the fees and costs that the Frenches had incurred up to the time of the offer. ... But the court nevertheless ordered a substantial reduction in the fee request to $2,500 because the Frenches obtained only 'de minimis' success at trial. ...

"The district court's basis for reducing the Frenches' fee request - limited success at trial - is an accepted ground for limiting fees under the FDCPA. ...

"In light of the $3,900 offer of judgment from the defendants, the likely reason for the Frenches to have gone to trial was because they hoped to obtain a significant award of actual damages. But it is clear from the trial testimony that the possibility of the Frenches obtaining such a recovery was minuscule. ... In short, going to trial provided the Frenches with little benefit, and it had virtually no chance of doing so. It was a permissible exercise of discretion in these circumstances for the district court to conclude that fees incurred in this endeavor should not be recovered. "

French, et al. v. Corporate Receivables, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-156-07) (6 pages) (Howard, J.) (1st Circuit) Appealed from a decision by Ponsor, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Jason David Fregeau for the plaintiffs-appellants; Adam J. Basch for the defendants-appellees (Docket No. 06-1533) (June 7, 2007).

Case attached. I also attached Marek v Chesny.

[rubyruby27]

I have read caselaw that if a confidentialty(SP) clause is part of a settlement you can refuse and it can't be held against you. It also mentioned if you were trying to make caselaw I think or that could have been another case I read.