Brablec v. Paul J. Coleman & Associates, P.C., No. 2:2008cv01843 - Document 19 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that plaintiffs' motion for entry of default judgment 12 be GRANTED. Judgment should be rendered in the amount of $26,000.00. Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs 13 be GRANTED in the amount of $5,700.00. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days; signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/21/10. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Brablec v. Paul J. Coleman & Associates, P.C. Doc. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GEORGE BRABLEC, 11 12 13 Plaintiff, vs. PAUL COLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C., 14 15 CIV. NO. S-08-1843 MCE GGH FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. ___________________________/ 16 Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against defendant Paul Coleman 17 & Associates, P.C. (“defendant”), filed May 29, 2009, was submitted on the record. Local Rule 18 230(h). Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, filed May 29, 19 2009. Upon review of the motion and the supporting documents, and good cause appearing, the 20 court issues the following findings and recommendations. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On August 8, 2008, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint in this action against 23 defendant, alleging defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (15 24 U.S.C. § 1692) and plaintiff’s right to privacy under state law by their harassing phone calls and 25 threats to garnish his wages, causing him multiple medical and emotional problems as a result of 26 the stress. The summons and complaint were personally served on defendant on December 5, 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2008. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 2 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (default judgment void without personal jurisdiction). Defendant has 3 failed to file an answer or otherwise appear in this action. On January 8, 2009, the clerk entered 4 default against defendant Paul Coleman & Associates, P.C. 5 Request for entry of default and the instant motion for default judgment and 6 supporting papers were served by mail on defendant at its last known address. Defendant filed 7 no opposition to the motion for entry of default judgment. Plaintiff seeks default judgment in the 8 amount of $26,000.00. Plaintiff also has moved for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of 9 $5,700.00. 10 DISCUSSION 11 Entry of default effects an admission of all well-pleaded allegations of the 12 complaint by the defaulted party. Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557 (9th Cir. 13 1977). The court finds the well pleaded allegations of the complaint state a claim for which 14 relief can be granted. Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976). The 15 memorandum of points and authorities and affidavits filed in support of the motion for entry of 16 default judgment also support the finding that plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested. There 17 are no policy considerations which preclude the entry of default judgment of the type requested. 18 See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-1472 (9th Cir. 1986). 19 Courts generally disfavor default judgments, however, especially those involving 20 large sums. See In Re Roxford Foods, Inc., 12 F.3d 875, 879 (9th Cir.1993);10A C. Wright, A. 21 Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 3d § 2681. “The general rule of law is 22 that upon default factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to amount of 23 damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 8(d), 24 55(b)) (emphasis added); see also Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir.2002) 25 (same). 26 \\\\\ 2 1 Granting or denying default judgment is discretionary. See Draper v. Coombs, 2 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir.1986). Several factors may be relevant. See Eitel, 782 F.2d at 3 1471-72 (9th Cir.1986).1 4 “A judgment by default may not be entered without a hearing on damages unless 5 ... the amount claimed is liquidated or capable of ascertainment from definite figures contained in 6 the documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits.” Dundee Cement, 722 F.2d at 1323 (citing 7 Geddes); Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir.1981) (no hearing necessary when 8 documents show judgment amount based on a definite figure); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2) 9 (the district court has the discretion to conduct or refuse a hearing on default judgment). A 10 hearing on the issue of damages is not required as long as the court finds there is a basis for the 11 damages specified. Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 12 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997). Affidavits or other documentary evidence is sufficient to evaluate the 13 fairness of the amount requested. Tamarin v. Adam Caterers, Inc., 13 F.3d 51, 54 (2d Cir. 1993). 14 A. Statutory Damages 15 Plaintiff seeks $1,000 pursuant to § 1692k(a)(2)(A) of the FDCPA. 16 The FDCPA provides for damages of up to $1,000, and provides for factors to be 17 considered by the court, including “the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt 18 collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance was 19 intentional.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); (b)(1). Statutory damages are limited to $1,000 per 20 action. Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Services, Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 21 (limiting statutory damages to “one set of circumstances”); Nelson v. Equifax Information 22 Services, LLC, 522 F. Supp.2d 1222 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (limiting statutory damages to “$1,000 per 23 lawsuit, not $1,000 per violation”). The statute itself provides that “in the case of any action by 24 1 25 26 Factors include: (1) possible prejudice to plaintiff; (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive claim; (3) the complaint’s sufficiency; (4) the sum at stake; (5) possible disputes about material facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the strong policy favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. 3 1 an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000 ...” 15 2 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A). 3 4 5 6 Plaintiff’s request for $1,000 in statutory damages under the FDCPA is supported by the allegations of plaintiff’s complaint and should be awarded. B. Actual Damages Section 1692k(a)(1) also provides for actual damages. “Actual damages” are not 7 defined by the FDCPA. The Ninth Circuit has not decided whether the state law of intentional 8 infliction of emotional distress should apply or whether some lower standard akin to that used 9 under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) should apply. See Costa v. National Action 10 Financial Services, 2007 WL 4526510, *7 (E.D. Cal. 2007); Riley v. Giguiere, 631 F.Supp.2d 11 1295, 1314 (E.D. Cal. 2009). The undersigned need not address which standard should apply as 12 the instant motion is not opposed. The affidavit submitted by plaintiff supports his request for 13 physical damages and mental suffering. (Ex. A to Mot. Default J.) Plaintiff states that as a result 14 of defendant’s harassing phone calls to both his home and his work, as well as threats to garnish 15 his wages, plaintiff suffered heart problems, high blood pressure, sleep loss, fatigue, loss of 16 concentration, poor work performance, stress, anxiety, depression, and fear of leaving his house. 17 (Id.) The requested amount of $25,000 is reasonable under these circumstances. 18 19 20 21 C. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Plaintiff has filed a separate motion for $5,120 in attorneys’ fees and $580 in costs incurred in the instant action. Attorneys’ fees are to be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff under the FDCPA. 15 22 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(3). In particular, under the FDCPA, some courts have ruled that an attorney fee 23 award is mandatory in such cases. See, e.g. Zagorski v. Midwest Billing Services, Inc., 128 F.3d 24 1164 (7th Cir.1997). First, the court calculates the “lodestar figure” by taking the number of 25 hours reasonably expended on the litigation and multiplying it by a reasonable hourly rate. 26 Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct.1933 (1983). Second, the court must decide 4 1 whether to enhance or reduce the lodestar figure based on an evaluation of the Kerr factors that 2 are not already subsumed in the initial lodestar calculation. Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc., 214 F.3d 3 1115 (9th Cir. 2000); Kerr v. Screen Extras Guild, Inc., 526 F.2d 67, 70 (9th Cir.1975). “A court 4 is justified in relying on a requesting counsel’s recently awarded fees when setting that counsel’s 5 reasonable hourly rate.” Abad v. Williams, Cohen & Gray, Inc., 2007 WL 1839914, *4 (N.D. 6 Cal. 2007), citing Widrig v. Apfel, 140 F.3d 1207, 1210 (9th Cir.1998). 7 Plaintiff’s attorneys request fees for a total of 13.5 hours of attorney work, 8 consisting of .2 hours for Mr. Hyslip at a rate of $300 per hour, 8.8 hours for Mr. Meier at a rate 9 of $250 per hour, 4.2 hours for Mr. Sostrin at a rate of $250 per hour, and .3 hours for Mr. Kwun 10 at a rate of $200 per hour. Plaintiff also seeks fees for 14 hours of work by other staff members 11 at a rate of $125 per hour for legal assistants Seckel, Juare, Hense, and Flynn. (Ex. A to Pl.’s 12 Mot.) 13 14 15 As there is no opposition by defendant, plaintiff’s request for fees appears reasonable and should be granted. Section 1692k(a)(3) also provides for recovery of “costs of the action.” “Even 16 though not normally taxable as costs, out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an attorney which 17 would normally be charged to a fee paying client are recoverable as attorney’s fees.” Chalmers v. 18 City of Los Angeles, 796 F.2d 1205, 1216 n. 7 (9th Cir.1986). The non-taxable costs of filing and 19 serving the complaint, as well as the pro hac vice application fee for Mr. Meier fit this 20 description. Therefore, plaintiff will be awarded $580 in costs. 21 CONCLUSION 22 In view of the foregoing findings, it is the recommendation of this court that: 23 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment (dkt. # 12) be GRANTED. 24 25 26 Judgment should be rendered in the amount of $26,000.00. 2. Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs (dkt. # 13) be GRANTED in the amount of $5,700.00. 5 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the honorable Morrison C. 2 England, Jr., United States District Judge, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 3 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any 4 party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 5 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any 6 reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. 7 The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 8 right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 9 DATED: 01/21/2010 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows ___________________________________ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 GGH:076/Brablec1843.def.wpd 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
