Hill v. First Integral Recovery, LLC et al
Filing
14
ORDER AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT entered - granting in part and denying in part 13 Motion for Default Judgment. Default judgment in the total amount of $3,389.50 is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on the FDCPA claim asserted in count one of the complaint (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff is awarded $1,000.00 in statutory damages, and $1,889.50 in attorney fees and $500.00 in costs. Plaintiff's request for an award of $750.00 in anticipated fees and costs is den ied. Plaintiff shall, by October 30, 2009, file (i) a notice of dismissal of the invasion of privacy claim (count two), or (ii) a status report indicating how Plaintiff intends to proceed on that claim. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 10/15/09.(DMT, )
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Tamisha Hill, Plaintiff, vs. First Integral Recovery, LLC; and O.J. Lawal & Associates, Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
No. CV-09-839-PHX-DGC ORDER AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Tamisha Hill filed a complaint against Defendants First Integral Recovery, LLC and O.J. Lawal & Associates on April 21, 2009, asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA") and a common law claim for invasion of privacy. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has filed an amended motion for default judgment. Dkt. #13. No response has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c). For reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part. Because Defendants' default has been entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (see Dkt. ##8-9), the Court has discretion to grant default judgment against Defendants pursuant to Rule 55(b). See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980); Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924 (9th Cir. 1986). Factors the Court should consider in deciding whether to grant default judgment include (1) the possibility of prejudice to Plaintiff, (2) the merits of the claims, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the amount of money at stake, (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts,
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(6) whether default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the policy favoring a decision on the merits. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Having considered Plaintiff's motion and supporting affidavit, which address each of the Eitel factors (see Dkt. ##13, 13-3), and having reviewed the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint (see Dkt. #1), the Court concludes that default judgment is appropriate on the FDCPA claim (count one). See Nero v. Law Office of Sam Streeter, P.L.L.C., --- F. Supp. 2d ---, No. 08-CV-1459 (KAM) (RLM), 2009 WL 2981973, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2009) (granting default judgment on FDCPA claims); Gilmore v. Account Mgmt., Inc., No. 1:08-cv-01388-JOF, 2009 WL 2848249, at *2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 31, 2009) (same). The Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to the extent she seeks $1,000 in statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) and $1,889.50 in attorney fees and $500 in costs under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). See Dkt. #13 at 4. Because Plaintiff seeks damages under the FDCPA only, and because she has not briefed her common law claim for invasion of privacy (count two), the Court will not grant default judgment with respect to that claim. See Jenkins v. E. Asset Mgmt., LLC, No. 4:08-CV-1032 CAS, 2009 WL 2488029, at *2-4 & n.1 (granting default judgment on FDCPA claim but not claim for invasion of privacy). Plaintiff's request for an award of $750 in anticipated collection fees and costs will be denied. IT IS ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's amended motion for default judgment (Dkt. #13) is granted in part and denied in part. Default judgment in the total amount of $3,389.50 is entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants on the FDCPA claim asserted in count one of the complaint (Dkt. #1). Plaintiff is awarded $1,000.00 in statutory damages, see15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A), and $1,889.50 in attorney fees and $500.00 in costs, see 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). 2. Plaintiff's request for an award of $750.00 in anticipated fees and costs is denied. 3. Plaintiff shall, by October 30, 2009, file (i) a notice of dismissal of the invasion of privacy claim (count two), or (ii) a status report indicating how -2-
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiff intends to proceed on that claim. DATED this 15th day of October, 2009.
-3-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
