Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00839/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00839-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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,

Case 2:09-cv-00839-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/16/09 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

(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

Case 2:09-cv-00839-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/16/09 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

Plaintiff intends to proceed on that claim.

DATED this 15th day of October, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00839-DGC Document 14 Filed 10/16/09 Page 3 of 3