Ryan Lowe v. Capital Link Management LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 1:21-cv-00997
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RYAN LOWE,

Plaintiff, 21-CV-997-LJV-LGF v. DECISION & ORDER

CAPITAL LINK MANAGEMENT LLC,

Defendant.

On July 14, 2025, this Court granted a motion for a default judgment filed by the plaintiff, Ryan Lowe, and awarded him $500 in statutory damages under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Docket Item 27. The Court directed Lowe to file a motion for attorneys’ fees, id. at 5, which he did, Docket Item 29; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) (allowing for reasonable attorneys’ fees in FDCPA cases).1 The Court has carefully reviewed Lowe’s motion and, for the reasons that follow, grants his request and awards him $6,570.00 in attorneys’ fees and $402.00 in costs. 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

1 After Lowe filed his motion for attorneys’ fees, Docket Item 29, this Court referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio to handle non- dispositive matters under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), see Docket Item 30. 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), this Court considers Lowe’s motion in the first instance. 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 his motion for attorneys’ fees, Lowe submitted time records indicating that two attorneys—Sergei Lemberg and Jody Burton—spent a cumulative total of 23.9 hours on his case and that a paralegal spent 3 hours. Docket Item 29-1 ¶ 22; see Docket Item 29-3. Lowe requests hourly rates of $300 per hour for attorney time and $100 per hour for paralegal time. Docket Item 29-1 ¶ 22. Both attorneys have

extensive experience in litigating consumer protection cases: Burton has been practicing for more than thirty years and Lemberg for more than twenty. See Docket Item 29-2 at 4-5. The memorandum of law supporting Lowe’s motion for attorneys’ fees does not indicate the level of experience of the paralegal who worked on the case. See generally id. Given recent case law in this district, the Court finds that Lowe’s requested hourly rate of $300 for his 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 23.9 hours of attorney time and 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 Lowe in the amount of $6,570. The Court also awards the requested $402 in costs for the filing fee. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, this Court GRANTS Lowe’s motion, Docket Item 29, and awards him $6,570 in attorneys’ fees and $402 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