Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00674/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00674-1/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

Jessica Vaile, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

National Credit Works, Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-674-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On January 13, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing,

currently scheduled for February 23, 2012, on the grounds that Plaintiff’s counsel has “a

scheduling conflict that requires travel out of state for business[.]” (Doc. 22 at 1-2)

Plaintiff’s Motion indicates Plaintiff has “withdrawn her claim for actual damages; and

therefore requests no oral arguments, evidentiary hearings unless requested by the court.”

(Id. at 1) 

I. Background

This action arises on Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant National Credit Works, Inc.,

violated numerous parts of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §

1692 et seq., by attempting to “to unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by

Plaintiff, and . . . caus[ing] Plaintiff damages.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 2 at 2) The Complaint, filed on

April 6, 2011, requests “actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory

damages in an amount up to $1,000.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A); and,

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) from Defendant.”

(Id., ¶ 64 at 9) On April 18, 2011, Plaintiff consented in writing to magistrate-judge

Case 2:11-cv-00674-LOA Document 23 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 5
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

1

 Defendant’s default was first entered on September 26, 2011, but was set aside by

the Court on October 18, 2010, because it was not entirely clear that Defendant was properly

served. (Doc. 14)

- 2 -

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1). (Doc. 6) Defendant, allegedly located in the

City of Tonawanda, in Erie County, State of New York and doing business in the State of

Arizona, was served with process, at least once, and has failed to answer or otherwise

respond to the Complaint. (Docs. 1, ¶¶ 9, 11, and 13 at 2-3; 15) Defendant’s default was

entered by the Clerk of Court on December 2, 2011, pursuant to Rule 55(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

(Doc. 181

)

II. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

The FDCPA provides that, in addition to actual damages (which Plaintiff does not

now seek), “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter

with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to . . . such additional

damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding $1,000.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a); Clark v.

Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (indicating that

FDCPA limits statutory damages to $1,000 where “numerous violations of the FDCPA are

predicated upon one set of circumstances”). 

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3), a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to the costs of

her FDCPA action, as well as “a reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court.”

Edwards v. National Business Factors, Inc., 897 F.Supp. 458, 459 (D.Nev. July 6, 1995);

Jacobson v. Healthcare Fin. Servs., Inc., 516 F.3d 85, 95 (2d Cir. 2008) (“The FDCPA

provides for fee-shifting as a matter of course to successful plaintiffs . . . .”). “An award of

attorneys’ fees pursuant to section 1692k(a)(3) is mandatory.” Schueneman v. 1st Credit of

America, LLC, 2007 WL 1969708, * 1 (N.D.Cal. July 6, 2007) (citing Graziano v. Harrison,

950 F.2d 107, 113 (3d Cir. 1991)) (“[A]ttorney’s fees should not be construed as a special

or discretionary remedy; rather, the [FDCPA] mandates an award of attorney’s fees . . . .”).

III. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55

“When a plaintiff prevails by default, he or she is not automatically entitled to the

Case 2:11-cv-00674-LOA Document 23 Filed 01/23/12 Page 2 of 5
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 -

damages they originally demanded.” Comdyne I, Inc. v. Corbin, 908 F.2d 1142, 1149 (3d Cir.

1990); Taylor Made Golf Co., Inc. v. Carsten Sports, Ltd., 175 F.R.D. 658, (S.D.Cal. 1997).

Rule 55(b)(2) requires a district court to make an independent assessment of damages when

deciding a motion for default judgment. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., 513

F.Supp.2d 1, 3-4 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (citing S.E.C. v. Management Dyn., Inc., 515 F.2d 801,

814 (2d Cir. 1975)). Damages may be proven through either an evidentiary hearing, or

through affidavits and other documents as exhibits that provide a factual basis for

determining the amount of a default judgment award. For example, “[a]s a general

proposition, punitive damages cannot be awarded simply on the basis of the pleadings, but

must instead be established at an evidentiary hearing held pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2)

because they clearly are not liquidated or computable.” Comdyne I, 908 F.2d at 1152 (citing

Flaks v. Koegel, 504 F.2d 702, 707 (2d Cir. 1974)). 

The Ninth Circuit holds that a district court may consider the following factors in

exercising its discretion to award a default judgment:

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits of plaintiff’s substantive

claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money at stake in the

action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether the

default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). “In applying this discretionary

standard, default judgments are more often granted than denied.” Philip Morris USA, Inc. v.

Castworld Prods., Inc., 219 F.R.D. 494, 498 (C.D.Cal. 2003).

IV. Discussion

 Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Attorney’s Fees and Costs confirms

Plaintiff has abandoned her claim for actual damages and seeks only statutory damages of

$1,000.00 and an award of attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party. (Doc. 21 at 3, 7-

8) Because an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs may be determined by affidavit

and supporting documentation, even though such fees were not alleged as a liquidated

amount in the Complaint, Rule 55(b)(2)(B) does not require an evidentiary hearing.

Holtsinger v. Briddle, 2007 WL 1080112, * 1 (E.D.Cal. 2007) (“[W]hen a plaintiff’s

Case 2:11-cv-00674-LOA Document 23 Filed 01/23/12 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 -

damages are unliquidated (i.e., capable of ascertainment from definite figures contained in

documentary evidence or in detailed affidavits) or punitive, they require ‘proving up’ through

an evidentiary hearing or some other means.”) (citing Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe

& Concrete Prods., 722 F.2d 1319, 1323 (7th Cir. 1983)) (“A judgment by default may not

be entered without a hearing on damages unless, . . . the amount claimed is liquidated or

capable of ascertainment from definite figures contained in the documentary evidence or in

detailed affidavits.”) (citations omitted); Kauffman v. Specialty Flooring Systems, Inc., 2012

WL 32739, * 4 (M.D.Pa. January 6, 2012) (“[t]he Court does not find that a hearing is

necessary under Rule 55(b)(2)(B) to determine the amount of damages due, as the requested

amounts are computable from the terms of the Agreement and proper documentary evidence.

See 10 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.32[2][c] (Matthew Bender

ed. 2010).”)

V. Conclusion

The Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing to determine Plaintiff’s statutory

damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs is unnecessary. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s

alternative request for a ruling without further oral argument, evidentiary hearing, evidence

or documentation. If Plaintiff is unable to adequately support her claims without further

documentary submissions, the Court may schedule an evidentiary hearing or further briefing

on the matter.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing, doc. 22,

is GRANTED. The default damages evidentiary hearing set for 2:00 p.m. on Thursday,

February 23, 2012 is hereby VACATED. The Court will take Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Judgment and Attorney’s Fees and Costs against Defendant National Credit Works, Inc., doc.

21, under advisement pending receipt of the documents set forth below, and thereafter will

prepare and file a Report and Recommendation pursuant to General Order 11-3 as the

Court’s calendar permits.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless already provided and filed, Plaintiff shall

Case 2:11-cv-00674-LOA Document 23 Filed 01/23/12 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

timely file, no later than Thursday, February 9, 2012, the following:

1. Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with citations to the record and

any affidavit as support therefor,

2. A Default Memorandum which shall set forth: (a) the basis for this Court’s subject

matter jurisdiction over this action; (b) why service of process on Defendant complied with

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4; the basis for this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant; (d) the legal

and factual basis for each of Plaintiff’s claims for liability, damages and other requested

relief; (e) whether any Defendant is a minor or incompetent person and, if so, whether such

Defendant is represented by a general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary in

accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(b)(2); and (f) a discussion of each of the Eitel factors,

justifying the exercise of the Court’s discretion to award a default judgment against

Defendant. Plaintiff must provide citations to the record in support of each factual allegation

and controlling or persuasive legal authority in support of Plaintiff’s arguments. 

3. An affidavit for an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, if authorized by law, and

list of non-taxable expenses in compliance with Local Rule LRCiv 54.2(d), (e), and,

4. A proposed Default Judgment which clearly articulates the specific monetary

damages and other relief sought; the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees requested; and the

amount of all authorized non-taxable expenses and costs. 

Plaintiff’s counsel shall also email copies of all the requested documents set forth

herein to the undersigned’s chamber’s email box (anderson chambers@azd.uscourts.gov) in

text-searchable format.

Dated this 23rd day of January, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-00674-LOA Document 23 Filed 01/23/12 Page 5 of 5