Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01987/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01987-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE, SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: 

 Plaintiff Marisa Massey has filed an Amended Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 

25).1

 No response has been filed, and the time to do so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c). 

 On November 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendants 

Everest Asset Management, LLC, Value Healthcare Management, LLC, and Bitach 

Capital Management Incorporated, asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collections 

Practices Act (FDCPA). (Doc. 7.) Defendants were served on December 10, 2012 (Doc. 

12), December 14, 2012 (Doc. 13), and January 10, 2013 (Doc. 16), respectfully. 

However, none of the Defendants have appeared in this case. Because Defendants have 

never appeared, it may be fairly assumed that they have not consented to Magistrate 

Judge jurisdiction. Accordingly, the undersigned submits this recommendation to the 

presiding District Judge for the purpose of entering a case dispositive order. For the 

 1

 In an Order dated April 9, 2013 (Doc. 22), this Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Default Judgment (Doc. 21), but granted her leave to file an amended Motion for Default 

Judgment. 

Marisa Massey, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Everest Asset Management, LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-12-01987-PHX-SPL

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Case 2:12-cv-01987-SPL Document 26 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 4
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 

reasons that follow, the Court will recommend that the Motion for Default Judgment be 

granted. 

 Because Defendants’ default has been entered under Rule 55(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (see Doc. 19), 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 

considers 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; 

(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). In applying 

these Eitel factors, “the factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the 

amount of damages, will be taken as true.” Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 

560 (9th Cir. 1977). 

 In light of the executed summons documents (Doc. 12, 13, 16), the Court finds 

that each Defendant has been properly served as required by Rule 4 of the Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure. Defendants have not made an appearance in this case, and the 

allegations are undefended. Having considered Plaintiff’s motion, which addresses each 

of the Eitel factors (see Doc. 25 at 5-11), the Court finds that granting default judgment 

for Plaintiff is appropriate. The material facts required to establish violations of the 

FDCPA have been sufficiently pled against the Defendants. (See Doc. 7.) Although 

personal service was made, Defendants have failed to appear and defend this suit for 

approximately six months. Consequently, the Court concludes that Defendants’ default is 

not due to excusable neglect. Moreover, the complaint alleges repeated violations of the 

FDCPA by Defendants, and their absence from this case precludes a decision on the 

merits. Accordingly, the Court will take all factual allegations in Plaintiff’s complaint, 

except those relating to the amount of damages, as true. 

 The Court further finds that it has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

Case 2:12-cv-01987-SPL Document 26 Filed 05/31/13 Page 2 of 4
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 

1331, that venue is proper in this Court because a substantial part of the events giving rise 

to this claim occurred in this judicial district, and that it has personal jurisdiction over 

Defendants because their conduct caused harm in this district and they had or should have 

had an expectation to be hauled into court in this district. In sum, the Court finds the 

Defendants liable for the conduct alleged. 

 Having determined liability, the remaining issue is appropriate relief. In a default 

judgment action, the amount of damages will not automatically be assumed true. See 

Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560 (stating that “the factual allegations of the complaint, except 

those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true”). Here, Plaintiff requests 

costs and attorney fees as well as statutory damages. The costs and attorney fees are welldocumented (see Doc. 25), the Court finds the evidence satisfactory and the fees to be 

reasonable, and recommends that the award of costs and attorney fees be granted as 

requested, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). The Court recommends that Plaintiff be awarded 

$624.10 for costs and $4,705.00 in reasonable attorney fees, for a total amount of 

$5,329.10. As to statutory damages, the FDCPA permits a statutory award of up to 

$1,000.00 against each liable debt collector. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A). Representatives 

of Everest Asset Management, who acted on behalf of the Defendants, made three calls to 

Plaintiff and left four voicemails. In doing so, the callers failed to meaningfully disclose 

their identity. In light of these findings, the Court further recommends that Plaintiff be 

awarded statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.00. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED: 

1. That Plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 25) be granted; 

2. That Plaintiff be awarded costs and attorney fees in the amount of $5,329.10 

against Defendants jointly and severally; and 

3. That Plaintiff be awarded statutory damages in the amount of $1,000.00 

against Defendants jointly and severally. 

Case 2:12-cv-01987-SPL Document 26 Filed 05/31/13 Page 3 of 4
4 

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 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules 

of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. 

The parties shall have 14 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation 

within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within 

which to file a response to the objections. 

Failure to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

district court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to timely file objections to any factual determinations of 

the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of 

the findings of fact in an order of judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 31st day of May, 2013. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-01987-SPL Document 26 Filed 05/31/13 Page 4 of 4