Per Curiam
Cabala’s 2009 action sought damages for alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by Morris, a now deceased attorney. Morris had offered to pay Cabala the maximum damages he could have been entitled to under the FDCPA. However, after fruitless settlement discussions the parties stipulated for a judgment in Cabala’s favor, with damages set at the statutory maximum as provided in Morris’s initial settlement offer. District court awarded Cabala $32,489 in attorney fees and costs. The co-executors of Morris’ estate argued the award unreasonably included fees incurred after Morris’s settlement offer. Discussing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. of Am and Doyle v. Midland Credit Management, Second Circuit determined that because Morris’s initial settlement offer did not include an offer of judgment, it did not fully resolve the parties’ dispute. Thus, further litigation by Cabala was not unreasonable. Absent any precedent holding that Morris’s settlement proposals were equivalent to an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, it was not per se unreasonable for Cabala to continue to litigate his case until Morris eventually capitulated and stipulated to entry of judgment.
