HUNTER v. FIDELITY CREDITOR SERVICE INC (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Karl Hunter appeals from the district court's entry of default judgment in his action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Rosenthal Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for clear error the factual determinations underlying an award of attorney's fees and de novo the legal premises a district court uses to determine an award. Camacho v. Bridgeport Fin., Inc., 523 F.3d 973, 977 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court did not err in determining attorney's fees pursuant to a local rule because Hunter presented no adequate evidence on the reasonableness of the attorney's fees award. See Vogel v. Harbor Plaza Ctr., LLC, 893 F.3d 1152, 1159 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that in a default judgment, if a party seeks to avoid the fees set forth in a local rule, it must show that the requested fee is “reasonable” under the lodestar method).

Contrary to Hunter's contention, the district court was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing on actual damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)(B) (the district court “may conduct hearings ․ when, to enter or effectuate the judgment, it needs to: ․ determine the amount of damages” (emphasis added) ).

AFFIRMED.