[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DECEMBER 30, 2009
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 09-11230 CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-02396-CV-BBM-1
BRENDA EDWARDS,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
NIAGARA CREDIT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
a New York corporation
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(December 30, 2009)
Before CARNES, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc., a debt collection agency subject to the
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p,
appeals the district court’s order awarding $33,036.00 in attorney’s fees to Brenda
Edwards.
I.
On September 28, 2007, Brenda Edwards filed a complaint against Niagara
Credit Solutions, Inc. alleging that messages Niagara left on her answering
machine violated §§ 1692e(11) and 1692d(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act. She sought an award of statutory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. On
November 13, 2008, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of
Edwards after concluding, among other things, that Niagara’s messages violated
those provisions and that the company was not protected by the bona fide error
defense, an affirmative defense available to debt collectors under the Act. See 15
U.S.C. § 1692k(c). On February 9, 2009, the district court awarded Edwards
$33,036.00 in attorney’s fees. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act allows a
prevailing plaintiff to recover “a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the
court.” See § 1692k(a)(3).
In a separate appeal, Niagara challenged the district court’s determination
that it was not protected by the bona fide error defense. In Edwards v. Niagara
2
Credit Solutions, Inc., 584 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2009), we affirmed the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Edwards, concluding that Niagara
was not protected by the bona fide error defense because its violation of the Act
was intentional and did not constitute a bona fide error. See id. at 1353–54. In
this appeal, Niagara is challenging the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to
Edwards. Niagara does not contest the amount of Edwards’ award but rather
asserts that Edwards was not entitled to attorney’s fees because it was protected by
the bona fide error defense. We have already decided that issue against Niagara.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order awarding Edwards attorney’s
fees.
AFFIRMED.
3