Stanley v. Capital Link Management LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELAINE STANLEY,
Plaintiff,
21-CV-806-LJV-JJM
v. 	DECISION & ORDER
CAPITAL LINK MANAGEMENT LLC,
Defendant.
On February 14, 2025, this Court granted a motion for a default judgment filed by
the plaintiff, Elaine Stanley, and awarded her $500 in statutory damages under the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Docket Item 44. The Court directed Stanley
to file a motion for attorneys’ fees, id., which she did, Docket Item 45; see also 15
U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) (allowing for reasonable attorneys’ fees in FDCPA cases).1
The Court has carefully reviewed Stanley’s motion and, for the reasons that
follow, grants her request and awards her $9,130.00 in attorneys’ fees and $487.00 in
costs.
1 The Court initially directed Stanley to submit her motion to United States
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, see Docket Item 44 at 7, to whom this Court
had referred this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), see Docket Item 6. But
because motions for attorneys’ fees at the end of a case are dispositive, see McConnell
v. ABC-Amega, Inc., 338 Fed. App’x. 24, 26 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order), and the
referral to Judge McCarthy was for non-dispositive motions only, see Docket Item 6, this
Court considers Stanley’s motion in the first instance.
Case 1:21-cv-00806-LJV-JJM Document 47 Filed 01/21/26 Page 1 of 4

2
DISCUSSION
Under the FDCPA, courts have discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to
successful litigants. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). A court should consider case-
specific variables in setting a reasonable hourly rate, which in turn should be used to
calculate the “presumptively reasonable fee.” Arbor Hill Concerned Citizens
Neighborhood Ass’n v. County of Albany, 493 F.3d 110, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2007),
amended on other grounds by 522 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2008). The hourly rates charged in
the reviewing court’s district are presumptively the rates that the court should use.
Simmons v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 575 F.3d 170, 175-76 (2d Cir. 2009). Therefore, this
Court considers the prevailing market rate in the Western District of New York in
determining a reasonable fee here. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895 n.11
(1984) (considering the market rate for “similar services by lawyers of reasonably
comparable skill, experience[,] and reputation”).
In support of her motion for attorneys’ fees, Stanley submitted time records
indicating that three attorneys—Sergei Lemberg, Jody Burton, and Joshua Markovits—
spent a cumulative total of 28 hours on her case and that a paralegal spent 7.3 hours.
Docket Item 45-2 ¶ 20; see Docket Item 45-3. Stanley requests hourly rates of $300
per hour for attorney time and $100 per hour for paralegal time. Docket Item 45-2 ¶ 20.
All three attorneys have extensive experience in litigating consumer protection cases:
Burton has been practicing for more than thirty years, Lemberg for more than twenty,
and Markovits for more than ten. see Docket Item 45-1 at 4-6. The memorandum of
law supporting Stanley’s motion for attorneys’ fees does not indicate the level of
experience of the paralegal who worked on the case. See generally Docket Item 45-1.
Case 1:21-cv-00806-LJV-JJM Document 47 Filed 01/21/26 Page 2 of 4

3
Given recent case law in this district, the Court finds that Stanley’s requested
hourly rate of $300 for her attorneys to be reasonable and appropriate. See, e.g.,
McPhaul v. Insight Mgmt. Partners, 2022 WL 542534, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2022)
(finding $300 attorney hourly rate reasonable for experienced attorney in FDCPA case);
Welch v. PDL Recovery Grp., LLC, 2019 WL 4887595, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2019)
(same); Eades v. Kennedy, PC. Law Offs., 343 F. Supp. 3d 104, 108 (W.D.N.Y. 2018)
(same); Langhorne v. Takhar Grp. Collection Servs., Ltd., 2016 WL 1177980, at *2
(W.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2016) (same). Although a closer question, the Court also finds the
requested paralegal rate to be reasonable and appropriate for this District. See, e.g.,
Warman v. L. Off. of Daniel M. Slane, 2017 WL 971196, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2017)
(this Court’s finding nearly nine years ago that “[h]aving received no indication of the
experience of the respective paralegals who worked on this case, . . . an hourly rate of
$90 [wa]s appropriate for their services”); Douyon v. NY Med. Health Care, P.C., 49 F.
Supp. 3d 328, 348 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (finding over a decade ago that “[i]n the Second
Circuit, prevailing paralegal, law clerk and legal assistant rates have more recently been
found to be anywhere from $70 to $100 per hour”).
Based on its review of the billing records, the Court finds the 28 hours of attorney
time and 7.3 hours of paralegal time to be reasonable. Using the $300 hourly rate for
the attorneys and the $100 hourly rate for the paralegal, this Court therefore awards
attorneys’ fees to Stanley in the amount of $9,130. The Court also awards the
requested $487 in costs for the filing fee and service of the summons and complaint.
Case 1:21-cv-00806-LJV-JJM Document 47 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 4

4
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this Court GRANTS Stanley’s motion, Docket Item
45, and awards her $9,130 in attorneys’ fees and $487 in costs. The Clerk of Court
shall enter judgment and close this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	January 21, 2026
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:21-cv-00806-LJV-JJM Document 47 Filed 01/21/26 Page 4 of 4