Accordingly, upon review of the Defendant's cited cases, the court finds that Johnson factor (12) does not require a lower lodestar award, but rather supports the lodestar award in this case. The cited cases are: Carroll v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 53 F.3d 626, 628 (4th Cir. 1995) ; Denton, 252 F. Supp. 3d at 504 ; Beasley, 2016 WL 8261707 ; Withers v. Eveland, 997 F. Supp. 738 (E.D. Va. 1998) (Merhige, J.); Jones v. Vest, No. 3:00cv287, 2000 WL 33907601 (E.D. Va. Dec. 27, 2000) (Dohnal, M.J.). iv. Final Lodestar Amount
Additionally, counsel's effort to distinguish between successful efforts in obtaining default judgment against MSF and the unsuccessful result involving the answering defendants, and counsel's stated level of experience and expertise support an hourly rate that is also in the lower range of prevailing rates in the relevant market area with which the court is familiar from its own knowledge and experience and other fee petitions that the court has considered in other cases over time. See, e.g., Moncada v. Evan Energy Co., No. 3:03cv240 (E.D. Va. Dec. 10, 2003) (Dohnal, J.) (Approving rate of $215 per hour in ERISA claim); Withers v. Eveland, 997 F. Supp. 738, 740 (E.D. Va. 1998) (Merhige, J.) (Accepting rate of $200 per hour for experienced consumer protection practitioner). The Plaintiff is only entitled by statutory proscription in TILA to a single recovery for multiple failures to disclose required information in the same transaction.
The rate of $200.00 per hour is in line with rates awarded in other recent FDCPA cases. See McDaniel, 1996 WL at *1 (awarding $200.00 per hour to plaintiff's counsel herein); Savino v. Computer Credit, Inc., 71 F. Supp.2d 173, 177 (E.D. N Y 1999) (reasonable rate is $200.00 an hour); Withers v. H.R. Eveland, 997 F. Supp. 738, 739 (E.D. Va. 1998) ($200.00 per hour is within the prevailing market range for attorneys with significant experience in the field of consumer protection litigation); Hensley v. Berks Credit Collections, Inc., No. Civ. 97-790, 1997 WL 725367 *6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18, 1997) (awarding $200.00 an hour, despite the court's opinion that the rate is too high for work performed on relatively simple claims, because defense counsel did not challenge the rate); Thorpe v. Collection Information Bureau, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 1172, 1173-74 (S.D. Fla. 1996) (finding $195.00 an hour reasonable). 2. Reasonableness of hours worked