WPC; V4 4diFU5-(od@Zjv9;JGeٴѴD3qI`V#)30 ,S,Cqb̔dĖY =.v` ea&71dMԛ¥_-mQ3ab#^7!ԵIÌDS~ |L4Xe{ \COlMi`dXLF_>}Ϭ[$̇<%FB@B!7U0|jyO\gW(=kd_b%^@C5< p=HnW /YF;tnOЍCE}|PeÉ=gfSї$%p %ŸN 'R-.e q3 ߊth￴J.y"#[7yoCu묨U#!U3N % 0U: 1u2 J 0 E 4     0gna 0' 0 0< 0N^ w@ B5 m7N 08UN> 1 1U>UNM& 01* 0=[ 0 0>` 0 1h 0 0 0aW 0 0l! 09 " 0Y" 025# 0g# 0:c$ 0$ 0_"% 0 % 0k& B*' 0 ( D3) C* D+4* 0_* 0&, 06 - 0C- 0:K. 0h. 0F.U63/U*i/M/M/UN/ 0"/ 0D 1MO1_ S1S1S1M;M; ; ;HP LaserJet 2200 Series PCL 60(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(ۆ$XHHXXXX7NXXdXXd7,  AZ"Arial Regular3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) @ ,XXXXX d   d 9XA: ) 3^dEz030AA ) 3^^dE%30A(2$ ۆ!XHXHXXX8XXdd8   d v+H,3|x#Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(?$25  0  .3  0@ Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5para numberingLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(WMR$0 25  a  .3  0` (#(#(nN$0 0` (#(#25   .3  0 ` (#` (#(>$0 0` (#(#0 ` ` (#` (#25(  0  )3  0  (# (#(2$0 0` (#(#0 ` ` (#` (#0  (# (#25(  a  )3  0h!(#(# GartenGarayOverholtzerBeattyTrailmasterAngelettiHensleyEckerhartZipeso]nlyGrazianoDiFilippov.MorizioStensonWebermeierCreightonAubertDeleonZainoKilsheimerLoggins DeloFleetwoodMcGeheeFerrell W.VaJankowitzFalckPerkissRatnerS.D.N.Y.Stastnyxx.xxMorizioBrinkerGiuffridaMagnusonPrandini!N- E{ !D"D# d U  +XXXXX d  _,"X @  @  d   XX gqMICHAELC.WORSHAM,Esq. h+`$0 1916CosnerRoadForestHill,Maryland,210502210(410)5576192Fax:(509)3571930michael@worshamlaw.com(3$ ۆ!XHXHXXX8XXdd8   d )l  Z6Times New Roman Regular(ehCEKQW]cioAutoList41.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.\  `&Times New RomanhH Z6Times New Roman Regular0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEKF<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KF<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/KF<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/&0 d d<:zBottom of I<=4$ ** ddI  B    ?G%2A`Arial?9>=*  dd9  XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS  ::::'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI<=4$** ddI  B    ?G%2A`Arial?9>=*  dd9  XXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleKF<6X9`(Courier NewKS#\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKF<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS#\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular((3G$ ۆ!XHX(XXX8YXXdXXd8   `   1  (%$  1   U KG$XXXXX `   1    _L XXԀH&EManagementisadebtcollectorunderbothMarylandlawandtheFDCPA.Thecase  selectivelyquotedbyH&EManagementforthefirsttimeattrial#XX # XXԀinitsMotionforJudgment,Aubertv.  AmericanGeneralFinance,137F.3d976(7thCir.1998)isinappositetotheinstantcase.InAubertthe   issuewaswhetheranaffiliatecontrolledbyaparentcorporationwasadebtcollectorwithinthemeaningoftheFDCPA: Thetermdoesnotinclude...anypersonwhileactingasadebtcollectorfor   anotherperson,bothofwhomarerelatedbycommonownershiporaffiliatedbycorporatecontrol,ifthepersonactingasadebtcollectordoessoonlyforpersonstowhomitissorelatedoraffiliatedandiftheprincipalbusinessofsuchpersonisnotthecollectionofdebts.15U.S.C.1692a(6)(B).Theaffiliated   collectorinAubertwasnota debtcollectorundertheFDCPAbecauseoftheaffiliatedownership  and/orcontrol,andbecausetheaffiliatecollecteddebtsonlyforentitieswithwhichitwasaffiliatedorrelated,notsimplybecausethecollectorengagedinactivitiesotherthancollection.Id.at978.Those   factsarenotpresenthere.ProphecyHomeownersAssociationanditsdebtcollector(H&EManagement)arecompletelyseparatecorporateentitiesthatarenotaffiliatedinanyway,havenocommonownership,andinwhichneitherhascorporatecontrolovertheother.Additionally,H&EManagementdoescollectdebtsforothersbesidesProphecyHomeownersAssociation.CongresswouldneverhaveallowedsuchagapingaloopholeintheFDCPAsoastoallowdebtcollectorsto   escapeliabilitysimplybyengaginginsomepercentageofnondebtcollectionwork,andthenclaimtheyarethereforenotdebtcollectors.DefendantsselectivecitationoftheAubertcaseattrialwas  disingenuous,andmislead#XX ٬# XXԀthecourttoreachanincorrectlegalconclusionregardingH&E   Managementstruelegalstatusasadebtcollectorunderfederallaw.#XX u #Ԁ7221-63223-99 ۆ!XHXXXX82XXdd8  _H X2XXX   _ X2XXX REGINALD_ԀL.ROBINSON h     * p INTHE   ` _Plaintiff #XXXX2#X2XXX _   h     * p CIRCUITCOURT   `     h     * p FOR    ` v.    h      p      x      `     h     * p PRINCEGEORGESCOUNTY   PROPHECYHOMEOWNERSetal.  0  * p  %%  `     h      ` Defendant   h     * p _ #XXXX2#X2XXX CASE_ԀNO.:_CAL #XXXX2#X2XXX _Ԁ0025507    * ` * *  * h *  *  * p *  *  * x * *0 (# *  (#%(#% ;_  #XXXX2i# $X2XXX2_  MEMORANDUMOFLAWINSUPPORTOFPLAINTIFFSFEEPETITION    #X2XX$X2#[nIntroductioneditedforWordversionforwebsite] (     MARYLANDCONSUMERLAW     ` TheMarylandConsumerProtectionActisanefforttoprotectconsumersfrommanydeceptiveandunfairpractices.TheMarylandlegislaturedesignatedandcodifiedthatit shallbeconstruedliberallytopromoteitspurpose.CLart.13105.Violationsofcertainsectionsoftheactallowaprivatecitizentobringanactionfordamages,includingattorneysfees.CLart.  13408.Section13301(14)(iii)oftheactspecificallyprovidesthatviolationsoftheMarylandConsumerDebtCollectionAct,CLart.14201204,aresubjecttoprivateactionsfordamages,includingattorneysfees.Theoperativefeelanguageis Anypersonwhobringsanactiontorecoverforinjuryorlossunderthissectionandwhoisawardeddamagesmayalsoseek,andthecourtmayaward,reasonableattorneysfees.CLart.13408(b). P"H$  ` TheimportanceMarylandputsonprovidingforprivateattorneystoearnfeesinordertorepresentpersonsisreflectedbythisfeeprovision,aspecificprovisionforprivateactionsoverandabovetheseparateprovisionfortheMarylandAttorneyGeneraltoseekcostsunderCLart.13409.TheimportanceofpreventingabusivedebtcollectionpracticesisreflectedintheprohibitedconductlistedatCLart.14202,andbytheprovisionforliabilityforanydamagesproximatelycausedbyviolations includingdamagesforemotionaldistressormentalanguishsufferedwithorwithoutaccompanyingphysicalinjury.14203.TheMarylandlawparallelsandsupplementsthefederalFairDebtCollectionPracticesAct,whichalsoprovidesforattorneyfeesandcoststoprevailingplaintiffs.15U.S.C.1692k(a)(3). /(6  ` TheonlyreportedcasecounselisawareofthatdiscussesattorneysfeesundertheMarylandunfairanddeceptivetradepracticesactisMercedesBenzofNorthAmerica,Inc.v.  Garten,94Md.App.547(1993).Attorneysfeesarediscussedattheendofthisopinion,where   thecourtenunciatedthefollowingprinciples:(1)aplaintiffisnotrequiredtoincludearequestforattorneysfeesisthecomplaint;(2)attorneysfeesareconsideredacollateralmattertothelitigationandmaybesoughtfollowingfinaljudgmentontheunderlyingclaim;(3)feessoughtunderRule1341(badfaithlitigation)aredistinguishablefromfeessoughtunderMarylandsconsumerprotectionlaws,andfeessoughtforconsumerprotectionviolationsdonotrequirethedetailedrecordsrequiredunderRule1341.MercedesBenz,94Md.App.at568569.In (  Marylandthedeterminationofattorneysfeesismadebythejudge,notthejury.Admiral   Mortgage,Inc.v.Cooper,357Md.533,553(2001). 0(  ` Althoughrelaxingthestandardfordetailedrecords,theconclusionsinMercedesBenzare  generallyconsistentwithfederalcaselawinterpretingattorneysfeesinfeeshiftingstatutes,includingthefederaldebtcollectionlaw,theFairDebtCollectionPracticesAct(FDCPA),15U.S.C.1692k.Marylandcourtslooktofederalinterpretationsonanalogousfederalrulesforguidance,orwhenMarylandcaselawislacking.#X2XXX2Androutsosv.FairfaxHospital#X2XX#X2#Ԁ323Md.634,  639(1991)( #X2XXX2Sinceourdiscoveryrulesarepatternedafterthefederalrules,welooktothose H@  federaldecisionsforguidanceinthisarea.);#X2XX#X27# X2XXX2ԀGarayv.Overholtzer,332Md.339,355(1993)  " (reiteratingthatwhereMarylandruleessentiallytracksfederalrule,interpretationsofthatfederalrulearepersuasiveastomeaningandproperapplicationsoftheMarylandrule);#X2XX X2 #Beattyv. #& Trailmaster,330Md.726,738n.8,(1993)( BecausetheMarylandsummaryjudgmentruleis X%P( derivedfromthefederalrule,judicialinterpretationsofthefederalrulearepersuasiveastothemeaningandproperapplicationoftheMarylandrule.); X2XXX2Jacksonv.State,340Md.705,716 `(X!, (1995)(notingthatwhenfederalruleofevidencecontainssamelanguageasMarylandruleofevidence,courtmaylooktoformerwheninterpretinglatter#X2XX X2#); X2XXX2PhilipMorrisInc.v.Angeletti,358 h+`$0 Md.689,724(2000)( ThereisadearthofauthorityinMarylandanalyzingthespecificrequirementsofMarylandRule2231.Weneednotconsidertheapplicationofthese p.h'4 requirementsinavoid,however,asthereexistsanabundanceofcasesfromotherjurisdictions,federalandstate,thathaveanalyzedclassactionruleseitheridenticaltoorsimilartoMaryland'srule#X2XX X2# X2XXX2.).#X2XX X2#B.` hp x (#XB#X2XXX2Ԁ    ` ItisthereforepropertolookattheFDCPAandotherfederalfeeshiftingstatutes,giventhescarcityofcaselawinterpretingtheMarylandConsumerDebtCollectionActandtheattorneysfeesprovisionsoftheprincipalMarylandconsumerprotectionstatute.#X2XX#X2B##X2XXX2      FEDERALCASELAWONATTORNEYSFEES      ` Theattorneysfeelanguagein#X2XX#X2#CLart.13408(b)issimilartothelanguageinthe   federalcivilrightsstatue,42U.S.C.1988: ...thecourt,initsdiscretion,mayallowtheprevailingparty,otherthantheUnitedStates,areasonableattorneysfeeaspartofthecosts.TheU.S.SupremeCourthasfoundthatunderthislanguage aprevailingplaintiffshouldordinarilyrecoveranattorneysfeeunlessspecialcircumstanceswouldrendersuchanawardunjust.Hensleyv.Eckerhart,461U.S.424,429(1983)(citationsomitted).JX2XXX2ԀTheSupremeCourt 80 haspointedoutthat #X2XXJX2"#JX2XXX2Feeshiftingstatutes'similarlanguageis'astrongindication'thattheyareto  beinterpretedalike."#X2XXJX2K##ԀJX2XXX2IndependentFederationofFlightAttendantsv.Zipes,491U.S.754,759 @8 (1989)(citationsomitted). ` #X2XXJX2$#InthecontextofdebtcollectionviolationsundertheFDCPA #X2XXX2[o]nlyinunusual H@  circumstances,however,maythecourtdeclinetoawardafee.B.` hp x (#XB#X2XX#X2%#ԀGrazianov.Harrison,950F.2d  " 107,114(3dCir.1991).#X2XXX2Ԁ Inabilityofalosingpartytopaytheattorney'sfeeisnotarelevant P"H$ considerationinawardingareasonableattorneyfee.Id.(citingInmatesofAlleghenyCounty #& Jailv.Pierce,716F.2d177,180(3rdCir.1983)).#X2XX#X2X&# X%P(  ` Plaintiffssuingunderafeeshiftingstatuteare privateattorneysgeneralinthesensethattheyseektovindicateimportantpublicrights.Awardsofthesefeesarecritical,becauseif plaintiffswereroutinelyforcedtobeartheirownattorneysfees,fewaggrievedpartieswouldbeinapositiontoadvancethepublicinterest.Newmanv.PiggieParkEnterprises,Inc.390U.S. h+`$0 400,402(1968).Anattorneysfeeawardalsodetersnoncompliancewiththelaw,andencouragessettlement.Eddyv.ColonialLifeIns.Co.,59F.3d201,207208(D.C.Cir.1995). p.h'4  ` Theinitialestimateofareasonableattorneysfeeisproperlycalculatedbymultiplyingthenumberofhoursreasonablyexpendedonthelitigationtimesareasonablehourlyrate.Hensley,461U.S.at433(thelodestaramount).Whilethetrialcourthasdiscretionto   determinetheproperfeeamount, where,ashere,thepartyachievessuccessonthemerits,anawardofallreasonablehoursatareasonablehourlyrate,i.e.,thelodestarfigure,is   presumptivelyappropriate.DiFilippov.Morizio,759F.2d231,234(2dCir.1985).IfaJX2XXX2 court   augmentsorreducesthelodestarfigureitmuststateitsreasonsfordoingso'asspecificallyaspossible.Id.#X2XXJX2,#Ԁ(citationsomitted).Thefactthatthenatureofcasemaystraightforwardandnon   novelnatureisnotgroundsforareductionofthelodestaraward.DiFilippov.Morizio,759F.2d (  231,235(2dCir.1985)(citingBlumv.Stenson,465U.S.886(1984)).    ` Theamountofareasonablefeeshouldbecalculatedaccordingtotheprevailingmarketratesintherelevantcommunity,regardlessofwhethertheprevailingpartyisrepresentedbyaprivateattorneyoranonprofitlegalaidorganization.Blumv.Stenson,465U.S.886(1984).If 80 contingent,thefeeawardshouldcompensatecounselfortheriskofreceivingnocompensation,andinfact,thiscontingencyisanadequatebasisforanupwardadjustmenttocompensateforthecontingentnatureofsuccess.Id.at903(#X2XXX2 Lawyersoperatinginthemarketplacecanbeexpected  tochargeahigherhourlyratewhentheircompensationiscontingentonsuccessthanwhentheywillbepromptlypaid,irrespectiveofwhethertheywinorlose.)(#X2XX#X2'1#J.Brennan,concurring)#X2XXX2.#X2XX#X2s2#  " However,Plaintiffhereisnotseekinganyupwardadjustmentofthe lodestaramount.̀ ` Although nofeesshouldbeawardedfortimespentonunsuccessfulclaimsthatwere #& unrelatedtosuccessfulones,when however,thefactsofanunsuccessfulclaimareinextricablyintertwinedwiththoseofasuccessfulclaim,feesfortotaltimespentareappropriatelyawardedbecausebothclaimsrequiredinvestigationofacommoncoreoffacts. `(X!, Thomasv.Peacock,39F.3d493,507(4thCir.1994)(FDCPAcase).SeealsoJX2XXX2Brownv.DavidK. )". Richards&Co.,978P.2d470,1921(Utah1999)#X2XXJX2<5#.TheSupremeCourthasrecognizedthe h+`$0 distinctionbetweenmultipledistinctclaims,asopposedtomultiplecommonclaims.JX2XXX2Hensley, ,%2 461U.S.at434.However,theplaintiffshouldstillrecoverfeesforunsuccessfulclaimsbasedon p.h'4 alternativelegalgrounds:#X2XXJX2r6#  JX2XXX20 ` Whereaplaintiffhasobtainedexcellentresults,hisattorneyshouldrecoverafully  compensatoryfee.Normallythiswillencompassallhoursreasonablyexpendedonthelitigation,andindeedinsomecasesofexceptionalsuccessanenhancedawardmaybejustified.Inthesecircumstancesthefeeawardshouldnotbereducedsimplybecausetheplaintifffailedtoprevailoneverycontentionraisedinthelawsuit.SeeDavisv.Countyof   LosAngeles,supra,at5049.Litigantsingoodfaithmayraisealternativelegalgrounds V N foradesiredoutcome,andthecourt'srejectionoforfailuretoreachcertaingroundsisnotasufficientreasonforreducingafee.Theresultiswhatmatters. ` %` % Hensley,461U.S.at435.#X2XXJX2{7#7 Thus,althoughplaintiffintheinstantcasecouldseekandthecourt ^V  shouldawardfeesforthefactuallyintertwinedFDCPAcountsthatplaintiffwasnotsuccessfulon,Thomas,39F.3dat507,plaintiffisnotseekinganyfeesforworkonthecloselyrelated f^  FDCPAclaims,orfortheunsuccessfulproceduralandevidentiarymotions.    ` ThereisaJX2XXX2presumption thatareasonableattorney'sfeeincludesreasonabletraveltime nf billedatthesamehourlyrateasthelawyer'snormalworkingtime.Henryv.Webermeier,738  F.2d188,194(7thCir.1984);Wheelerv.DurhamCityBd.OfEd.,585F.2d618,623624(4th vn Cir.1978)(holdingthatattorneysfeesincludeslitigationexpensessuchassupplementalsecretarialcosts,copying,telephone,andnecessarytravelcosts,#X2XXJX2<#JX2XXX2whichareservicesallintegrally ~v relatedtotheworkofanattorneyandwhichmayplayasignificantroleintheultimatesuccessoflitigation.).#X2XXJX2?#JX2XXX2ԀTheHenry#X2XXJX2 @#Ԁcourtexplainedtravelcostsinafeecontext: ~ _!!__!!JX2XXX2_0 ` Whenalawyertravelsforoneclientheincursanopportunitycostthatisequaltothefee  ! hewouldhavechargedthatoranotherclientifhehadnotbeentraveling.Thatiswhylawyersinvariablychargetheirclientsfortraveltime,andusuallyatthesameratetheychargeforothertime,exceptwhentheyareabletobillanotherclientforpartofthetraveltime(alawyermightdoworkforclientAwhileflyingonanairplanetoameetingwithclientB).Andiftheychargetheirpayingclientsfortraveltimetheyareentitledtochargethedefendantsforthattimeinacasesuchasthiswheretheplaintiffshaveshownastatutoryrighttoreasonableattorneys'fees. ` %` % #X2XXJX2@#AId.JX2XXX2ԀOnlyifthetravelisunnecessary,orifthetravelisunnecessarilyluxurious,#X2XXJX2ND#JX2XXX2Ԁshouldthetime &* spentintravelbesubtractedout.Id.󀀀Noneofthesefactorsarepresenthere.Counselisnot `(X!, chargingforallreasonabletraveltime,andhissecondmeetingwiththeplaintiffwascoordinatedtoreducecounselstraveltime.SeeaccompanyingAffidavitofMichaelC.Worshamat17.#X2XXJX2D# h+`$0  ` Finally,aDefendantsgeneralstatementthatthehoursclaimedareexcessive,standing ,%2 alone,isnotenough: WJX2XXX2eemphasizethattheadverseparty'ssubmissionscannotmerelyallegein p.h'4 generaltermsthatthetimespentwasexcessive."#X2XXJX2;G#JX2XXX2Bellv.UnitedPrincetonProperties,Inc.,884  F.2d713,720(3dCir.1989).The partyadvocatingthereductionofthelodestaramountbearstheburdenofestablishingthatareductionisjustified#X2XXJX2H#.JX2XXX2UnitedStatesFootballLeaguev   NationalFootballLeague,887F.2d408,413(2dCir.1989).#X2XXJX2@I#JX2XXX2Ԁ#X2XXJX2I#JX2XXX2ԀThefeeapplicationopponent#X2XXJX27J##X2XXX2Ԁhasa   burdenofrebuttalthatrequiressubmissionofevidencechallengingtheaccuracyandreasonablenessofthehourschargedorthefactsassertedbytheprevailingpartyinitssubmittedaffidavits#X2XX#X2J#JX2XXX2.Gatesv.Deukmejian,987F.2d1392,139798(9thCir.1992). [W]hereanopposing    partyhasbeenaffordedtheopportunitytoraiseamaterialfactissueastotheaccuracyofrepresentationsastothehoursspentorthenecessityfortheirexpenditureanddeclinestodoso,thereisordinarilynoreasonforacourttodisregarduncontestedaffidavitsofafeeapplicant.Brinkerv.Giuffrida,798F.2d661,668(3dCir.1986).#X2XXJX2K#JX2XXX2 0(  #X2XXJX2M#  THEFEESREQUESTEDAREREASONABLEANDPLAINTIFFACHIEVED  SUBSTANTIALSUCCESSINTHISCASE  80 2N ` JX2XXX2Thetotalnumberofhoursexpendedbyplaintiffsattorneysinceenteringthecaseand  pursuingtheclaimthroughathreedayjurytrialisreasonable.#X2XXJX2N#ԀPlaintiffssupportingAffidavit @8 andtimesheetsdetailandexplainthehoursforwhichfeesaresought,aswellasnumeroushoursforwhichfeesarenotbeingsought,eventhoughthecaselawsupportsawardforallormostofthosehours(suchasforfactuallyoverlappingclaimseventhoughultimatelynotsuccessful).Counselisonlyseekingsixhoursoutofthetotalofover16hoursexpendedtopreparetheFeePetitionandallaccompanyingsupportdocuments. ` Akeyfactorconsideredbycourtsis theimpactthislitigationwillhaveonDefendant. X%P( Creighton,1998U.S.Dist.Lexis6589at14.Mostsignificantly,intheinstantcaseplaintiff &* ReginaldRobinsonwassuccessfulattrial.ThiswillstoptheProphecyHomeownersAssociationfromfuturepublicationofhisnameandthatofdozensofothersinhiscommunity,andthedebtstheyallegedlyowed,ina HallofShamenewsletterdistributedthroughouthiscommunitytobothhomeownersandrentersalike. ` Additionally,plaintiffssuitchangedandcorrectedH&EManagementspractices p.h'4 regardingsendingoutdebtcollectionnotices.EventhoughplaintiffsproseThirdAmended  ComplaintabandonedhisearlierclaimsagainstH&EManagementforFDCPAviolationsforinadequatenoticeunder15U.S.C.1692e(11)(see6ofboththeAmendedComplaintandSecondAmendedComplaint),afterplaintifffiledthissuit,H&EManagementcorrectedthedeficientcollectionnoticestheyhadbeensendingout.PlaintiffsTrialExh.4,acollectionlettersenttoplaintiffbyH&EManagementonJuly23,1999,didnot,asrequiredbyfederallaw,discloseclearly thatthedebtcollectorisattemptingtocollectadebtandthatanyinformationobtainedwillbeusedforthatpurpose.15U.S.C.1692e(11).However,afterplaintifffiledthissuitonNov.13,2000,thesubsequentcollectionlettertoplaintifffromH&EManagementdatedApril24,2001(TrialExh.#5)doescontainthislanguagerequiredbytheFDCPA.Besidesthisspecificanddocumentedimprovementandsuccess,itislikelythatthissuitcausedH&EManagementtoexamineandimprovetheirdebtcollectionproceduresingeneral. ` Thus,Plaintiffssuithasbeenverysuccessful,havingachievedthemainpurposessoughtinthelitigation,includingafavorablechangeinDefendantH&EManagementsdebtcollectionpracticeduringpretrialonthefederalFDCPAclaimthatwasultimatelynotlitigatedat""trial.N L%  1      ׀JX2XXX2Sincetherecordofthecasedisclosesthenatureoftheproceedings,thetrialcourtmayrely  uponitsownknowledgeandexperienceinappraisingthevalueoftheattorneysservices.See  Deleonv.Zaino,92Md.App.399,419420(1992).#X2XXJX2Z#ԀShouldthetrialcourtexerciseany  discretionarypowertoadjusttherequestedlodestarfee,itshould,inordertoaidthereviewingcourt:#X2XXX20 ` Toplayfair,atrialjudgerelyingupondiscretionarypowersshouldplaceonrecordthe   circumstancesandfactorsthatwerecrucialtohisdetermination.Heshouldspellouthisreasonsaswellashecansothatcounselandthereviewingcourtwillknowandbeinapositiontoevaluatethesoundnessofhisdecision.Iftheappellatecourtconcludesthatheconsideredinappropriatefactorsorthattherangeofhisdiscretionaryauthorityshouldbepartiallyfencedbylegalbounds,itwillbeinapositiontodothisintelligently. ` %` % Kilsheimerv.Dewberry&Davis,106Md.App.600,629(1995)(citingM.Rosenberg,5  Judicial f^  DiscretionoftheTrialCourt,ViewedFromAbove5x_?""!!  ,22SyracuseL.Rev.635,665666(1971)).#X2XX#X2\##X2XXX2   \B.` hp x (#XB#X2XX#X2`#   ATTORNEYSFEESARENOTRELATEDTOTHEDAMAGEAWARD  nf 9a ` Theattorneysfeeawardedisnotrelatedtothesizeofthedamageawardtotheplaintiff.Creightonv.EmporiaCreditService,Inc.,1998U.S.Dist.Lexis6589at1415(E.D.Va.1998) vn ( Courtsgenerallywillnotlooktothesizeofthedamageawardindeterminingreasonableattorneysfeesinconsumercases)(anFDCPAcasecitingSmithv.Chapman436F.Supp58, ~v 66(W.D.Tex.1977);JX2XXX2Jordanv.TransnationalMotors,Inc.,212Mich.App.94,537N.W.2d  471(1995)(abuseofdiscretiontolimitattorneysfeesto40%ofamountobtainedattrial);#X2XXJX2c# ~ Logginsv.Delo,999F.2d364,368(8thCir.1993)(thetrialcourt acknowledgedthat  ! proportionalitybetweentheamountofdamagesandfeeawardswasnotrequired)(citingCityof !# Riversidev.Rivera,477U.S.561(1986));JX2XXX2Ricev.MikeFerrellFord,Inc.,403S.E.2d774 # % (W.Va.1991)(overturningfeeawardlimitedto1/3ofamountrecoveredandremandingforconsiderationoflodestaramountandotherfactors);#X2XXJX2e#ԀJX2XXX2GeneralMotorsAcceptanceCorp.v. &) Jankowitz,230N.J.Super.555,553A.2d1380(App.Div.1989)(remandingonissueof ' + attorneysfeesbecausetrialcourtlimitedattorneyfeestoverdictamount)#X2XXJX2f#;JX2XXX2FleetwoodMotor ")"- HomesofPennsylvania,Inc.v.McGehee,182Ga.App.151,355S.E.2d73(1987)(rejecting  claimthatundertheMagnusonMossact,courtshouldbelimitedtoawardingafeeproportionaltotheamountofdamagesobtained)#X2XXJX2 h#.    ` Thereasoningbehindthesecasesisthat Monetaryawardsunderstatetherealstakes.Judicialdecisionshaveeffectsonstrangers.Barrowv.Falck,977F.2d1100,11031104(7th   Cir.1992).TheJordancourtstatedtheseimportantpolicyconsiderationsthisway:   #X2XXX20 ` Inconsumerprotectionasthis,themonetaryvalueofthecaseistypicallylow.Ifcourts    focusonlyonthedollarvalueandtheresultofthecasewhenawardingattorneyfees,theremedialpurposesofthestatutesinquestionwillbethwarted.Simplyput,ifattorneyfeeawardsinthesecasesdonotprovideareasonablereturn,itwillbeeconomicallyimpossibleforattorneys% S %Sltorepresenttheirclients.Thus,practicallyspeaking,thedoortothecourtroomwillbeclosedtoallbutthosewitheitherpotentiallysubstantialdamages,orthosewithsufficienteconomicresourcestoaffordthelitigationexpensesinvolved.Suchasituationwouldindeedbeironic:itisbutpreciselythosewith% T %TmԀordinaryconsumercomplaintsandthosewhocannotaffordtheirattorneyfeesforwhomtheseremedialactsareintended ` %` % jB.` hp x (#XB#X2XX#X2j#JX2XXX2Jordanv.TransnationalMotors,Inc.,537N.W.2d471,474(1995).#X2XXJX2(o# vn  ` Separatefromtheissueofwhethertheplaintiffsuccessfullyreachedthegoalsofthelitigation,aswasclearlydonehere,isthattherearenumerouscasesunderavarietyoflawswheretheawardedattorneysfeesweremanytimeshigherthanthedamages.Logginsv.Delo,  999F.3d364,368(8thCir.1993)($25,000attorneysfeeawardincivilrightssuitforrecoveryof ~ $102.50inactualdamages);Perezv.Perkiss,742F.Supp.883(D.Del.1990)(anFDCPAcase  ! wherecourtawardedover$10,000infeesona$1,200juryverdict,including11hoursdefendingthefeepetition);JX2XXX2ԀUnitedStatesFootballLeaguevNationalFootballLeague,887F.2d408,(2d # % Cir.1989)#X2XXJX2lr#Ԁ(JX2XXX2antitrustsuitawarding#X2XXJX2s#JX2XXX2$5,529,247.25inattorney'sfeesand$62,220.92incostsfora $' juryverdictof$3.00)#X2XXJX2xs#;Ratnerv.ChemicalBank,54F.R.D.412(S.D.N.Y.1972)($20,000fees &) for$100damagesinaTruthinLendingActcase). ` Notably,undertheFDCPA,whichhasthesamefundamentalpolicygoalsastheMarylandConsumerDebtCollectionAct,reasonablefeesandcostsaremandatoryeveniftherehasbeennoawardofactualorstatutorydamages.Emanuelv.AmericanCreditExchange,870 *,"%1 F.2d805,809(2dCir.1989).Intheinstantcaseofcourse,damageswereawardedbythejury.   @`  DEFENDANTSATTORNEYFEESAREDISCOVERABLE  2/*(5 Ev ` TheeffortexpendedbytheDefendantscounselisrelevanttothefeesandcostsrequestedbyaprevailingplaintiff.Thisprincipleiswellestablished.AnearlycaseisStastnyv.Southern  BellTelephoneandTelegraphCo.,77F.R.D.662(D.N.C.1978).TheStastnycourtstatedthat    Amountsspentindefensehaveabearingontheburdentobeovercomebyplaintiffsandontheimportanceofthecase.Id.663.Thisinformationisnotprotectedbyattorneyclientprivilege:    Thenumberofhoursthatattorneysworkedtoprepareandtryacasewouldnot,however,beacommunication,andwouldnotbesubjecttotheprivilege.Id.(citingCalhounv.United    States,306F.2d633(2ndCir.1962)).    ` Defensecounselinthiscasewasexperiencedandcapable.PlaintiffisnotatthistimerequestingdiscoveryorinformationonDefendantscounselfeesandcosts,butwilldososhouldtheDefendantobjecttothefeenowsoughtbyPlaintiffandengageinfeedisputelitigation.Ifrequested, theDefendantmustprovideinformationastothenumberofhoursthateachattorney(privateandhousecounsel)spentonthiscase.Theyshouldalsoindicateonwhatmattersthetimewasspent.Stastny,77F.R.D.at664.Itisanabuseofdiscretiontorefusetoallow  discoveryastodefensecounselshoursandfeeswhendefendantischallengingthereasonablenessofplaintiffshoursandfees.Hensonv.ColumbusBank&TrustCo.,770F.2d  1566,1575(11thCir.1985). H@   ` Finally,arelatedissue,shouldDefendantmakeitone,isthattimespentlitigatingfeesiscompensable:0 ` Ifanattorneyisrequiredtospendtimelitigatinghisfeeclaim,yetmaynotbecompensatedforthattime,theattorneyseffectiverateforallthehoursexpendedonthecasewillbecorrespondinglydecreased.Recognizingthisfact,attorneysmaybecomewaryabouttaking...casesforwhichattorneysfeesarestatutorilyauthorized.#X2XXX2Sucha &) resultwouldnotcomportwiththepurposebehindmoststatutoryfeeauthorizations,Viz,theencouragementofattorneystorepresentindigentclientsandtoactasprivateattorneysgeneral.B.` hp x (#XB#X2XX#X2#`(X!,` %` % ~JX2XXX2Prandiniv.NationalTeaCo.,585F.2d47,5354(3dCir.1978)#X2XXJX2#. )".    CONCLUSION  H@     ` Plaintiffrespectfullyrequestsattorneysfeesintheamountof$13,175.75for75.29hoursofworkuptoandincludingthepreparationandsubmissionofthisFeePetition,pluscostsof$267.[Conclusion_edited_ԀoutforWordversionforwebsite] ,%2  p.h'4  `     h Respectfully,0 `     h     򀀀 ` %` % 0 `     h     MichaelC.Worsham,Esq. ` %` % 0 `     h     1916CosnerRoad ` %` % 0 `     h     ForestHill,Maryland210502210 ` %` % 0 `     h     (410)5576192 ` %` %  `     h     Fax:(509)3571930      0 `     h     AttorneyforPlaintiffReginaldRobinson ` %` % #@$D CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE    IcertifythatonSeptember23,2002acopyofthisdocumentwasmailedfirstclass,postage (  prepaid,toMarkI.Cantor,Esq.,ThePhysiciansPavilion,Suite408,10085RedRunBoulevard,OwingsMills,Maryland211174836,(410)5811111,attorneyforDefendants. `     h     򀀀   `     h     MichaelC.Worsham,Esq. `     h     1916CosnerRoad `     h     ForestHill,MD210502210׉#