Aspiri v. Legal Life Plans, Inc., No. 1:2013cv01206 - Document 72 (D. Colo. 2015)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER granting 53 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment; granting 54 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 8/14/2015.(vbarn)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Aspiri v. Legal Life Plans, Inc. Doc. 72 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Christine M. Arguello Civil Action No. 13-cv-01206-CMA-KLM MARK H ASPIRI, Plaintiff, v. LEGAL LIFE PLANS, INC., and LLP LEGAL PLANS, INC., Defendants. ORDER OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND ATTORNEY FEES This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Mark H. Aspiri’s Amended Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant LLP Legal Plans, Inc. (“LLP Legal”) (Doc. # 53), Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. # 54), and the parties’ Joint Consent to Judgment (Doc. # 68). Having reviewed the Motions and the Joint Consent to Judgment, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds that entry of judgment in favor of Plaintiff is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Amended Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. # 53) and the Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. # 54), and APPROVES the parties’ Dockets.Justia.com Joint Consent to Judgment (Doc. # 68). As such, judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff Mark H. Aspiri and against Defendants LLP Legal Plans, Inc. and Legal Life Plans, Inc., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, in the total amount of $239,273.39, representing unpaid wages in the amount of $104,000, plus Colorado Wage Act penalties in the amount of $86,437.50, pre-judgment interest of $37,823.14, and attorney fees in the amount of $11,012.75. Additionally, Defendant Legal Life Plans, Inc. is INDIVIDUALLY LIABLE for an additional $45,524.25 in additional attorney fees. It is FURTHER ORDERED that post-judgment interest shall accrue at the weekly rate established under 28 U.S.C. § 1961 from the date of entry of judgment. It is FURTHER ORDERED that Mark H. Aspiri’s Count V – Specific Performance Claim is dismissed with prejudice. DATED: August 14, 2015 BY THE COURT: ________________________________ CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge 2
]]>
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.
