Shockley, Cheryl v. Ascend Loans, LLC et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHERYL SHOCKLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASCEND LOANS, LLC, BENHTI ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and W6LS, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-424-jdp
EUGENE CRAIG,
Plaintiff,
v.
AWL, II, INC., BENHTI ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, and W6LS, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-493-jdp
Attorney Eric Crandall is counsel for the plaintiffs in these Fair Credit Reporting Act
cases.1 Counsel for defendants W6LS, Inc. and AWL, II, Inc. moved for sanctions in both cases,
contending that Crandall failed to withdraw proofs of service after they were shown to be false.
Dkt. 62. The court granted defendants’ motions, concluding that Crandall violated Rule 11(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because a reasonable attorney would have withdrawn
the proofs of service. Dkt. 90, at 7. The court sanctioned Crandall by requiring him to pay the
reasonable attorney fees and expenses defendants incurred in making the Rule 11 motions and
1 All citations to the docket refer to the docket in Shockley v. Ascend Loans, LLC, et al.,
No. 24-cv-424.
Case: 3:24-cv-00424-jdp Document #: 102 Filed: 03/24/26 Page 1 of 5

2
in responding to the fake proofs of service. Id. at 8. This order settles the amount of the
sanctions award.
Defendants submitted billing records showing that counsel for W6LS spent 22.7 hours
on the sanctioned issues in Shockley, corresponding to $7,319.50 in fees, and 20 hours in Craig,
corresponding to $7,432.00 in fees, for a total of $14,751.50. Dkt. 95, ¶¶ 16–17, 21; Dkt. 98.2
Counsel for AWL spent 9.2 hours representing it in Craig, corresponding to $3,932.00 in fees.
Dkt. 95, ¶¶ 18, 21.
Crandall doesn’t challenge the hours defendants’ counsel worked on the sanctioned
issues in Shockley and Craig. Nor does he challenge counsel’s hourly rates, apart from the hourly
rate of the paralegal who worked on Shockley. Instead, Crandall opposes the requested fees for
four reasons, none of which are persuasive.
First, Crandall contends that defendants improperly seek fees for work performed by
two attorneys that aren’t members of the court’s bar and didn’t move to appear pro hac vice,
Kevin Prewitt and Katherine Horn. Dkt. 101, at 2.3 The Seventh Circuit hasn’t addressed
whether parties can recover fees for work performed by non-admitted attorneys; however, one
district court in this circuit has held that a party may recover fees for a non-admitted attorney’s
work when that non-admitted attorney is supervised by attorneys licensed to practice in the
court. Moore v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:12-CV-166, 2012 WL 6217597, at *10 (N.D.
Ind. Dec. 12, 2012). Other circuits have also held that parties can recover attorney fees even
2 Defendants’ affidavit states that counsel for W6LS spent 18.8 hours representing it in Shockley
and requests $7,439.50 in fees for counsel’s work in that case, Dkt. 95, ¶¶ 16, 21, but those
figures are not supported by the billing records, Dkt. 98.
3 Citations to filings from the docket use the page numbers assigned by CM/ECF, not the page
numbers in the original document.
Case: 3:24-cv-00424-jdp Document #: 102 Filed: 03/24/26 Page 2 of 5

3
if the attorney performing the work isn’t admitted to practice. See Priestley v. Astrue, 651 F.3d
410, 416 (4th Cir. 2011); Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 823–26 (9th
Cir. 2009); Dietrich Corp. v. King Res. Co., 596 F.2d 422, 426 (10th Cir. 1979). Crandall doesn’t
explain why the court should chart a different course, so the court will allow W6LS to seek fees
for work performed by Prewitt and Horn.
Second, Crandall contends that W6LS improperly seeks fees for work performed by
paralegal Lisa Shields. Dkt. 101, at 2. But it is appropriate in assessing a reasonable fee to
consider paralegal time as well. Richlin Sec’y Serv. Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. 571, 581 (2008)
(reasonable attorney fees under Equal Access to Justice Act includes paralegal time); Missouri
v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 285 (1989) (reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 includes
paralegal time). Crandall also argues that Shields’s rate, $300 per hour, is unreasonably high.
See Dkt. 101, at 2. But he doesn’t submit evidence demonstrating that her rate exceeds the
market rate for paralegal work, which is “essentially a concession that the [paralegal’s] billing
rate is reasonable and should be awarded.” People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ., Sch. Dist.
No. 205, 90 F.3d 1307, 1313 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Bruzek v. Husky Oil Operations Ltd.,
No. 18-cv-697-wmc, 2023 WL 3002683, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Apr. 19, 2023) (hourly rate of
$200 to $315 for paralegals supported as market rate).
Third, Crandall contends that defendants missed the court’s deadline to submit an
accounting of their reasonable attorney fees and expenses. Dkt. 101, at 3. Defendants filed
their affidavit and the exhibits accompanying that affidavit by the deadline. Dkt. 95 and
Dkt. 96. Crandall argues that the exhibits are untimely because the clerk’s office asked
defendants to refile the exhibits to comply with the court’s Electronic Filing Procedure, and
defendants refiled the exhibits after the court’s deadline. Dkt. 98. But the Seventh Circuit
Case: 3:24-cv-00424-jdp Document #: 102 Filed: 03/24/26 Page 3 of 5

4
rejected the argument Crandall makes here in Farley v. Koepp, 788 F.3d 681 (7th Cir. 2015),
holding that a document is “filed on the date it is delivered to the clerk, regardless of defects
in form (including electronic defects).” Farley, 788 F.3d at 686; see Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 5(d)(4),
83(a)(2). Defendants met the deadline.
Fourth, Crandall contends that “the amount sought [by defendants] seeks to cripple
[his] law Practice.” Dkt. 101, at 4. The court may consider an attorney’s ability to pay when
imposing Rule 11 sanctions, notwithstanding the reasonableness of the decision to award
sanctions or the reasonableness of the fees sought. See Brandt v. Schal Assocs., Inc., 960 F.2d
640, 652 (7th Cir. 1992); In re Sokolik, 635 F.3d 261, 271 (7th Cir. 2011). But Crandall hasn’t
provided any evidence substantiating his assertion that awarding sanctions would subject him
to financial ruin, so the court can’t evaluate his ability to pay.
The court will order attorney Eric Crandall to pay $14,751.50 to W6LS and
$3,932.00 to AWL as a sanction for failing to withdraw the false proofs of service.
Case: 3:24-cv-00424-jdp Document #: 102 Filed: 03/24/26 Page 4 of 5

5
ORDER
1. 	Attorney Eric Crandall is ordered to pay $7,319.50 to defendant W6LS, Inc. for
counsel’s work in Shockley v. Ascend Loans, LLC, et al., No. 24-cv-424, and $7,432.00
to W6LS for counsel’s work in Craig v. AWL, II, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-493, for a
total of $14,751.50 as a sanction for failing to withdraw the false proofs of service.
2. 	Attorney Eric Crandall is ordered to pay $3,932.00 to defendant AWL, II, Inc. for
counsel’s work in Craig v. AWL, II, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-493 as a sanction for failing
to withdraw the false proofs of service.
Entered March 24, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge
Case: 3:24-cv-00424-jdp Document #: 102 Filed: 03/24/26 Page 5 of 5