ELBERT ANTHONY GIDDINGS, et al.
v.
BROWN & BROWN GENERAL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al.
CIVIL ACTION No. 16-4917
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 13, 2020
MEMORANDUM
Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.
After Defendants Joel Brown and Brown & Brown General Contractors, Inc. (collectively, Brown) failed to appear in this consumer protection case, the Court entered default judgment against Brown in the amount of $48,405. In its March 23, 2020, Memorandum granting default judgment, the Court exercised its discretion to award Plaintiffs attorney fees pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a request for reasonable attorney fees. On April 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion seeking $47,734.24 in attorney fees and costs. To date, Brown has not filed a response. The Court will grant the motion but will only award a total amount of $35,973.75, which includes $34,817.50 in attorney fees and $1,156.25 in costs.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs Elbert Anthony Giddings, Eunice Isaac, and Pullen A. Osagie hired Brown to complete home improvement projects on their respective properties. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, Brown was not a Pennsylvania licensed contractor and did not comply with several statutory requirements for home improvement contracts in Pennsylvania. After Plaintiffs paid Brown substantial deposits, Brown failed to complete the projects.
On September 12, 2016, Plaintiffs sued Brown claiming violations of the UTPCPL and the Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act (HICPA) and seeking damages. After personally
Page 2
serving Brown twice, Brown failed to appear. At Plaintiffs' request, the Clerk of Court entered Brown's default. Plaintiffs moved for default judgment
On January 7, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the motion for default judgment. At that hearing, Brown appeared for the first time. The Court held a second hearing on January 22, 2020. After hearing testimony and reviewing both parties' evidence regarding damages, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment and awarded actual damages totaling $16,135 and treble damages totaling $25,270.
In granting the motion for default judgment, the Court also exercised its discretion to award Plaintiffs attorney fees. However, because Plaintiffs had not yet filed an accounting of their attorney fees, the Court was unable to determine a reasonable award. As a result, the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a request for attorney fees pursuant to 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-9.2.
On April 20, 2020, Plaintiffs' attorneys, Gary Schapkopf and Matthew Weisberg, filed the instant motion for attorney fees. The attorneys represented Plaintiffs on a contingent-based fee but request $530 per hour for their services. Plaintiffs' attorneys each have approximately 20 years of experience. Pls.' Mot. for Att'y Fees & Costs Exs. A, B. Invoices attached to the motion show the attorneys spent approximately 88 hours on their representation of Plaintiffs over four years. Id. at Exs. D, E. The invoices provide associated costs and detailed descriptions of the services performed, the date for each service, and the quantity of hours spent on each service. Id. In total, Plaintiffs request $47,734.24, which includes $46,577.99 in attorney fees and $1,156.25 in costs.
DISCUSSION
The Court will grant attorney fees and costs but only award a total of $35,973.75 in attorney fees and costs. Pursuant to the UTPCPL, "[t]he court may award to the plaintiff, in addition to
Page 3
other relief provided in this section, costs and reasonable attorney fees." 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-9.2(a). There are four factors to consider in determining reasonable attorney fees:
(1) [t]he time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill requisite to properly conduct the case; (2) [t]he customary charges of the members of the bar for similar services; (3) [t]he amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the clients from the services, including ensuring that there is a sense of proportionality between the award of damages and the award of attorneys' fees; and (4) [t]he contingency or certainty of the compensation.
Richards v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 217 A.3d 854, 868 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019) (internal citations omitted).
"Prior to awarding counsel fees to a plaintiff on a UTPCPL claim, the defendant must have a 'fair opportunity to address' the legitimacy of the claim." Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022, 1031 (quoting McCauslin v. Reliance Fin. Co., 751 A.2d 683, 685 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)). The purpose of awarding attorney fees and costs under the UTPCPL is "to punish and deter unfair and deceptive business practices and to...
