How does the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act apply to original creditors in a way the federal FDCPA does not, and what makes this the structurally unique billing feature of the practice area?

Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c) defines 'debt collector' for Rosenthal Act purposes as 'any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or others, engages in debt collection' — a definition that expressly includes ORIGINAL CREDITORS (banks, auto lenders, medical providers, utility companies, landlords collecting rent, and other persons collecting their own consumer debts), not merely third-party collection agencies. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p, by contrast applies only to persons 'in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another' — excluding original creditors collecting their own debts. This distinction makes the Rosenthal Act the exclusive California mandatory attorney fee statute against original creditors (banks, auto lenders, utility companies, medical providers, and landlords) engaged in abusive collection practices. When the Rosenthal Act defendant is also a third-party debt collector subject to the FDCPA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17 incorporates the FDCPA's liability standards (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692b–1692j) into the Rosenthal Act, creating concurrent liability and concurrent fee-shifting. This § 1788.17 incorporation creates a bifurcated fee petition structure: the Rosenthal § 1788.30(c) California mandatory fee component is eligible for a Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) positive multiplier, while the FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) federal fee component is subject to the City of Burlington v. Dague 505 U.S. 557 (1992) no-multiplier rule for federal fee-shifting statutes. Attorneys billing on Rosenthal/FDCPA concurrent cases must maintain task-level billing entries that distinguish California Rosenthal tasks (Ketchum-eligible) from federal FDCPA tasks (Dague no-multiplier) from the inception of the DFPI complaint process — because Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) requires task-level specificity throughout the billing record, and the California/federal task segregation cannot be reconstructed retroactively from ambiguous time entries. The Rosenthal Act's original creditor coverage also means the DFPI consumer complaint database — which handles complaints against California-licensed original creditors (banks, auto lenders, utility companies, and medical debt collectors) — is the primary billing anchor rather than the CFPB database (federal, covers third-party collectors primarily) or PACER (only covers cases where civil complaints have already been filed).

How does the § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar requirement generate billing gaps on the civil litigation calendar in Rosenthal practice?

Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.17 provides that every debt collector collecting or attempting to collect a consumer debt shall comply with the provisions of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692b through 1692j — incorporating the FDCPA's substantive prohibitions into the Rosenthal Act for debt collectors subject to both statutes. This incorporation creates three distinct billing gaps on the civil litigation calendar. First, the bifurcated lodestar requirement: because Rosenthal § 1788.30(c) fees are a California mandatory fee statute eligible for a Ketchum v. Moses positive multiplier, while FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) fees are a federal fee-shifting statute subject to the City of Burlington v. Dague 505 U.S. 557 (1992) no-multiplier rule, every task-level billing entry from the DFPI complaint date forward must be coded as California Rosenthal (multiplier-eligible) or federal FDCPA (no-multiplier) — and mixed tasks must be apportioned. This bifurcation cannot be performed retroactively on undifferentiated time entries, so attorneys who do not document the Rosenthal/FDCPA task split from the beginning of the representation lose the Ketchum multiplier on the California component and produce a fee petition that is vulnerable to challenge on both components. Second, the § 1788.13 false representation prohibition generates advisory calls when the specific collection communications must be analyzed for Rosenthal violations (requiring § 1788.13 false or misleading representations; § 1788.11 obscene or profane language; § 1788.14 unfair or unconscionable means; FDCPA § 1692c through § 1692f substantive prohibition analysis under § 1788.17 incorporation). Third, the § 1788.30(b) statutory damages computation and class action scope advisory generates billing gaps when the number of violations and class action potential must be assessed — § 1788.30(b) statutory damages $100–$1,000 per individual action; § 1788.30(e) class action statutory damages: lesser of $500,000 or 1% of defendant's net worth; FDCPA § 1692k(a)(2)(B) class action cap: lesser of $500,000 or 1% of net worth; Ballard v. Equifax Check Services Inc. 186 F.R.D. 589 (E.D. Cal. 1999) Rosenthal class action structure. The California Superior Court scheduling order governs Rosenthal civil litigation, but the primary Welch anchor (DFPI complaint) predates the court filing by months, and the § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation creates a parallel federal billing calendar on the same civil case docket. At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.

Fee petition mechanics · Updated June 2026

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection attorney fee petition mechanics: California DFPI consumer complaint number as primary non-PACER non-CDI Welch anchor in DFPI consumer complaint database, Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c) Rosenthal Act mandatory fee documentation advisory, and original creditor fee petition advisory

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection solos billing hourly on Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c) mandatory attorney fees and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation — whose fee documentation must cover advisory calls triggered by the California DFPI consumer complaint number at dfpi.ca.gov/file-a-complaint (the primary non-PACER non-CDI Welch anchor in the California DFPI consumer complaint database, the only practice area in the fee-petition-mechanics series with its primary Welch anchor in the CALIFORNIA DFPI CONSUMER COMPLAINT DATABASE, which is administered by the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation and is entirely distinct from the DFPI Franchise Registration Portal used in the franchise practice area, the CDI used in insurance-bad-faith practice, the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database, PACER, and all other databases in the series — with the DFPI complaint number predating any Rosenthal Act civil complaint in California Superior Court by months because consumers file DFPI complaints against original creditors before retaining litigation counsel, making the DFPI complaint date the earliest dated document in the billing record for which § 1788.30(c) fees are compensable), the Rosenthal civil complaint and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar fee documentation calendar, and the post-judgment § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee petition and Ketchum/Dague bifurcated multiplier calendar — generate three billing gaps. § 1788.30(c) fees are awarded to prevailing consumer plaintiffs as a matter of course; Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) positive multiplier is available for the § 1788.30(c) California component; City of Burlington v. Dague 505 U.S. 557 (1992) no-multiplier applies to the concurrent FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) federal component requiring bifurcated task-level lodestar documentation: DFPI consumer complaint filing and § 1788.2 Rosenthal Act scope advisory calls arriving when consumer retains attorney after filing DFPI complaint against original creditor before any civil action is filed (7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% untracked ≈ 5.39 hrs = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr), Rosenthal civil complaint and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar fee documentation advisory calls arriving when the California Superior Court scheduling order is issued (6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% untracked ≈ 7.26 hrs = $2,178–$3,630/year), and § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee petition and Ketchum/Dague bifurcated multiplier advisory calls arriving when the Rosenthal action reaches judgment (5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% untracked ≈ 4.03 hrs = $1,210–$2,017/year). For a solo Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection practice, the annual billing gap is $5,005–$8,342.

TL;DR

ClaimHour captures every California DFPI consumer complaint filing and § 1788.2 Rosenthal Act scope advisory call that arrives when the consumer retains the attorney after filing a DFPI complaint against an original creditor before any civil action is filed, every Rosenthal civil complaint and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar fee documentation advisory call that arrives when the California Superior Court scheduling order is issued, and every § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee petition and Ketchum/Dague bifurcated multiplier advisory call that arrives when the Rosenthal action reaches judgment — passively, no timer, no audio, no call contents. $29–$59/mo. No PMS required.

California DFPI consumer complaint and Rosenthal Act violation scope advisory: calls on the DFPI consumer complaint database calendar

The California DFPI consumer complaint number — assigned when a consumer files a complaint at dfpi.ca.gov/file-a-complaint in the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation consumer complaint database — is the primary Welch temporal anchor for Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection billing documentation. Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection is the only practice area in the fee-petition-mechanics series with its primary Welch anchor in the CALIFORNIA DFPI CONSUMER COMPLAINT DATABASE — not the DFPI Franchise Registration Portal (franchise practice area), not the California Department of Insurance (insurance-bad-faith practice area), not the CFPB Consumer Complaint Database (federal), not PACER (federal court), not any California Superior Court CMS (state court), and not any law enforcement, professional licensing, or probate court database in the series. The DFPI consumer complaint database handles complaints against California-licensed original creditors: banks, credit unions, auto lenders, medical debt collectors, payday lenders, mortgage servicers, and utility companies. The DFPI complaint number predates any California Superior Court civil complaint by months because consumers file DFPI complaints immediately upon experiencing abusive collection practices — before retaining litigation counsel and before any civil action is filed or docketed. This makes the DFPI complaint date the earliest dated document in the Rosenthal Act billing record for which Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c) fees are compensable in a subsequent civil action, and all advisory calls triggered by the DFPI complaint filing process generate compensable time that attorneys fail to document because no court docket is open.

Three DFPI consumer complaint and Rosenthal Act violation scope advisory call types: (1) DFPI consumer complaint filing and § 1788.2 Rosenthal Act scope advisory — arrives when consumer retains attorney after experiencing abusive collection practices and the DFPI complaint must be filed (requiring Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c) "debt collector" under Rosenthal: ANY person — including original creditors — regularly collecting or attempting to collect consumer debts; § 1788.2(b) "consumer credit transaction" scope; DFPI consumer complaint at dfpi.ca.gov/file-a-complaint assigned a DFPI case number in the California DFPI consumer complaint database — the primary Welch temporal anchor, appearing before any PACER record or California Superior Court CMS record; § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee right for prevailing plaintiff begins from date attorney retained — 42–48 min); (2) § 1788.10–1788.16 prohibited conduct and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation scope advisory — arrives when the specific Rosenthal Act violations must be identified (requiring § 1788.10 threatening violence or harm; § 1788.11 obscene or profane language; § 1788.13 false or misleading representations; § 1788.14 unfair practices; § 1788.17 incorporation of FDCPA 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692c through 1692j standards for debt collectors subject to both Rosenthal and FDCPA; DFPI complaint documentation as Welch temporal anchor — original creditor collection abuse documented in DFPI regulatory complaint before any civil complaint — 42–48 min); (3) § 1788.30(a)/(b) actual and statutory damages and concurrent FDCPA fee advisory — arrives when the remedies available must be assessed (requiring § 1788.30(a) actual damages for Rosenthal violations; § 1788.30(b) statutory damages $100–$1,000 per individual action; § 1788.30(c) "reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court" for successful action; FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) concurrent fee right for third-party collectors; Rosenthal § 1788.17 incorporates FDCPA § 1692k liability for debt collectors subject to both — Ketchum multiplier available for § 1788.30(c) California component; Dague no multiplier for FDCPA § 1692k federal component if bifurcated — 42–48 min). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% = 323.4 min / 60 = 5.39 hours = $1,617–$2,695/year at $300–$500/hr.

Rosenthal civil complaint and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar fee documentation advisory: calls on the civil litigation calendar

The California Superior Court scheduling order governs Rosenthal Act civil litigation. Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee right and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation require concurrent documentation from the inception of the civil action. The § 1788.17 incorporation creates a bifurcated lodestar requirement: because Rosenthal § 1788.30(c) is a California mandatory fee statute eligible for a Ketchum v. Moses positive multiplier, while FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) is a federal fee-shifting statute subject to the City of Burlington v. Dague 505 U.S. 557 (1992) no-multiplier rule, every task-level billing entry from the DFPI complaint date forward must be coded as California Rosenthal (multiplier-eligible) or federal FDCPA (no-multiplier) — and this bifurcation cannot be performed retroactively on undifferentiated time entries. The civil litigation calendar generates three categories of advisory calls that arrive when court deadlines trigger billing discussions: the Rosenthal Act civil complaint scope advisory, the § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar advisory, and the § 1788.30(b) statutory damages computation and class action scope advisory.

Three Rosenthal civil complaint and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar advisory call types: (1) Rosenthal Act civil complaint and § 1788.2 original creditor scope advisory — arrives when civil complaint is filed (requiring § 1788.2(c) "debt collector" includes original creditors collecting their own debts — broader scope than FDCPA unique to Rosenthal; § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee right for successful plaintiff; California Superior Court CMS civil complaint filing date as secondary Welch anchor; Hensley lodestar from DFPI complaint date through civil complaint filing — 44–50 min); (2) § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar advisory — arrives when the scheduling order is issued and the FDCPA concurrent claim must be documented (requiring § 1788.17 Rosenthal Act incorporates FDCPA §§ 1692b–1692j standards; 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) FDCPA attorney fee shifting for successful action; bifurcated lodestar required: Rosenthal § 1788.30(c) California component Ketchum multiplier eligible; FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) federal component Dague no-multiplier; task-level billing entries must distinguish California Rosenthal tasks from federal FDCPA tasks; Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services LLC 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) Rosenthal/FDCPA concurrent claim framework — 44–50 min); (3) § 1788.30(b) statutory damages computation and class action scope advisory — arrives when the number of violations and class action potential must be assessed (requiring § 1788.30(b) statutory damages $100–$1,000 per individual action; § 1788.30(e) class action statutory damages: lesser of $500,000 or 1% of defendant's net worth; FDCPA § 1692k(a)(2)(B) class action cap: lesser of $500,000 or 1% of net worth; Ballard v. Equifax Check Services Inc. 186 F.R.D. 589 (E.D. Cal. 1999) Rosenthal class action structure — 44–50 min). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% = 435.6 min / 60 = 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year at $300–$500/hr.

§ 1788.30(c) mandatory fee petition and Ketchum/Dague bifurcated multiplier advisory: calls on the post-judgment calendar

Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c) — "In the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court, may be awarded to either party" — is applied by courts as a mandatory fee award to prevailing consumer plaintiffs; the "may" modifies the form of recovery (court-determined reasonable fee), not the entitlement. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) positive multiplier is available for the § 1788.30(c) California mandatory component when exceptional skill, novelty of question of law, or difficulty of Rosenthal Act litigation justifies enhancement. PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) California prevailing market rate governs the lodestar rate. The bifurcated multiplier structure — Ketchum for California § 1788.30(c) component, Dague no-multiplier for federal FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) component — creates two distinct post-judgment advisory calls that generate billing gaps when attorneys advise clients on the fee petition preparation process but fail to document those advisory calls.

Two § 1788.30(c) post-judgment advisory call types: (1) § 1788.30(c) fee petition and Ketchum multiplier advisory — arrives when Rosenthal action prevails (requiring § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee award for successful action; Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) positive multiplier for § 1788.30(c) California component when exceptional skill, novelty, or difficulty; PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) California prevailing market rate; Hensley v. Eckerhart 461 U.S. 424 (1983) lodestar from DFPI consumer complaint date at dfpi.ca.gov through civil complaint through judgment; Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees for § 1788.30(c) fee petition preparation hours — 44–50 min); (2) FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) concurrent fee petition and Dague no-multiplier advisory — arrives when both Rosenthal and FDCPA claims prevail (requiring FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) "in the case of any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court"; City of Burlington v. Dague 505 U.S. 557 (1992) no multiplier for FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) federal component; bifurcated lodestar: California § 1788.30(c) component Ketchum eligible, federal FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) component Dague no-multiplier; Hensley task-level segregation required for California/federal lodestar bifurcation; Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA 559 U.S. 573 (2010) bona fide error defense analysis — 44–50 min). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% = 242 min / 60 = 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year at $300–$500/hr.

How ClaimHour fits Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection practice

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection solos billing hourly on Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(c) mandatory fees and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation — with DFPI consumer complaint advisory calls arriving on the California DFPI consumer complaint database calendar when the consumer retains the attorney before any civil action is filed, Rosenthal civil complaint and § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar advisory calls arriving on the California Superior Court civil litigation calendar when the scheduling order is issued, and § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee petition and Ketchum/Dague bifurcated multiplier advisory calls arriving when the action reaches judgment — and if your § 1788.30(c) lodestar documentation must satisfy Hensley specificity from the DFPI complaint date (in the California DFPI consumer complaint database), through the § 1788.17 bifurcated California/FDCPA task segregation (on the California Superior Court civil litigation calendar), and through the Ketchum/Dague bifurcated multiplier petition (on the post-judgment calendar), ClaimHour was built for that gap.

Get early access

Related questions

Why is the California DFPI consumer complaint number the primary Welch anchor for Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection billing, and how does it differ from every other primary anchor in the fee-petition-mechanics series?

The California DFPI consumer complaint number — assigned at dfpi.ca.gov/file-a-complaint in the California DFPI consumer complaint database — is the primary Welch temporal anchor for Rosenthal billing. Rosenthal is the only practice area in the fee-petition-mechanics series with its primary Welch anchor in the CALIFORNIA DFPI CONSUMER COMPLAINT DATABASE — distinct from the DFPI Franchise Registration Portal (franchise practice area), CDI (insurance-bad-faith), CFPB Consumer Complaint Database (federal), PACER, and all law enforcement and court CMS databases in the series. The DFPI complaint number predates any California Superior Court civil complaint by months: consumers file DFPI complaints against California-licensed original creditors (banks, auto lenders, utility companies, medical providers) before retaining litigation counsel. Three DFPI advisory call types: DFPI complaint filing and § 1788.2 scope advisory (42–48 min — § 1788.2(c) original creditor coverage, § 1788.30(c) fee right from date retained); § 1788.10–§ 1788.17 prohibited conduct and FDCPA incorporation advisory (42–48 min — § 1788.17 FDCPA §§ 1692c–1692j incorporation for collectors subject to both); § 1788.30(a)/(b) damages and concurrent FDCPA fee advisory (42–48 min — § 1788.30(b) $100–$1,000 statutory damages, Ketchum California component, Dague federal FDCPA component). At 55% untracked: 7 clients × 2 calls × 42 min × 55% ≈ 5.39 hours = $1,617–$2,695/year.

How does the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act apply to original creditors in a way the federal FDCPA does not?

Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c) defines "debt collector" to include original creditors (banks, auto lenders, medical providers, utility companies, landlords) collecting their own consumer debts. The federal FDCPA (15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p) covers only third-party collectors — not original creditors. Rosenthal is therefore the exclusive California mandatory attorney fee statute against original creditors engaged in abusive collection. When the defendant is also an FDCPA third-party collector, § 1788.17 incorporates FDCPA §§ 1692b–1692j liability, creating concurrent Rosenthal + FDCPA claims and a bifurcated fee petition: Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) positive multiplier for the § 1788.30(c) California component; City of Burlington v. Dague 505 U.S. 557 (1992) no-multiplier for the FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) federal component. Task-level billing entries must distinguish California Rosenthal tasks from federal FDCPA tasks from the DFPI complaint date forward — Hensley task segregation cannot be reconstructed retroactively.

How does § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar generate billing gaps on the civil litigation calendar in Rosenthal practice?

§ 1788.17 incorporates FDCPA §§ 1692b–1692j into Rosenthal for debt collectors subject to both, creating concurrent Rosenthal and FDCPA liability. Because § 1788.30(c) fees are Ketchum-multiplier eligible and FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) fees are Dague no-multiplier, every task-level entry from the DFPI complaint date forward must distinguish California Rosenthal tasks from federal FDCPA tasks — bifurcation that cannot be performed retroactively on undifferentiated entries. Three civil litigation advisory call types: Rosenthal civil complaint and § 1788.2 original creditor scope advisory (44–50 min — California Superior Court CMS secondary Welch anchor, Hensley lodestar from DFPI complaint date); § 1788.17 FDCPA incorporation and bifurcated lodestar advisory (44–50 min — Gonzales v. Arrow Financial Services LLC 660 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2011) Rosenthal/FDCPA concurrent framework); § 1788.30(b) statutory damages and class action scope advisory (44–50 min — § 1788.30(e) class cap lesser of $500,000 or 1% net worth, Ballard v. Equifax Check Services 186 F.R.D. 589). At 55% untracked: 6 clients × 3 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 7.26 hours = $2,178–$3,630/year.

How does the § 1788.30(c) mandatory fee petition and Ketchum/Dague bifurcated multiplier advisory generate billing gaps on the post-judgment calendar?

§ 1788.30(c) "may be awarded" is applied by courts as a mandatory fee award to prevailing consumer plaintiffs. Ketchum v. Moses 24 Cal.4th 1122 (2001) positive multiplier for § 1788.30(c) California component. City of Burlington v. Dague 505 U.S. 557 (1992) no-multiplier for concurrent FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) federal component. PLCM Group Inc. v. Drexler 22 Cal.4th 1084 (2000) California prevailing market rate. Missouri v. Jenkins 491 U.S. 274 (1989) fees-on-fees for fee petition preparation hours. Two post-judgment call types: § 1788.30(c) California component fee petition and Ketchum multiplier advisory (44–50 min — Hensley lodestar from DFPI complaint date through civil complaint through judgment, Ketchum multiplier analysis for California mandatory component, Jenkins fees-on-fees); FDCPA § 1692k(a)(3) concurrent fee petition and Dague no-multiplier advisory (44–50 min — Dague no-multiplier for federal component, bifurcated lodestar exhibits, Jerman v. Carlisle 559 U.S. 573 (2010) bona fide error defense analysis). At 55% untracked: 5 clients × 2 calls × 44 min × 55% ≈ 4.03 hours = $1,210–$2,017/year. Total annual gap: $5,005–$8,342.