Cross-Complainant Did Win $140,550.51, Slightly Reduced Lodestar Enhanced By 1.5 Multiplier, Against One Cross-Defendant.
Professional Collection Consultants v. Lujan, Case Nos. A147922/A148925 (1st Dist, Div. 2 May 22, 2018) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished) is a situation where plaintiff filed to collect upon a credit card debt, with defendant responding by filing a cross-complaint against plaintiff/cross-defendants and other cross-defendants alleging they violated federal and state consumer protection laws (namely, the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act [FDCPA] and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practice Act [which is quite similar]). The debt was found to be time barred, with cross-complainant prevailing on his cross-complaint against one cross-defendant PCC but suffering a summary judgment loss in relation to the other cross-defendants.
The lower court awarded cross-complainant attorney’s fees of $140,550.51 (a slightly reduced lodestar enhanced by a 1.5 multiplier) as against PCC, but denied the other successful cross-defendants’ request for an award of fees against cross-complainant.
In the unpublished portion of the opinion on the fee awards, nothing changed.
With respect to PCC’s appeal, the trial judge properly found that even some unsuccessful efforts led to the overall success under the cross-complaint and that the 1.5 multiplier was no abuse of discretion given that cross-complainant’s attorney took the case on a contingency basis.
On the other cross-defendants’ appeal of the fee denial order, the lower court’s determinations were sustained because (1) cross-complainant’s debt collection cross-claims were not brought in bad faith and were colorable in nature (15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3)), and (2) fees were not awardable under Civil Code section 1717 because none of cross-complainants’ claims were “on the contract.”