Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06108/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-06108-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leslie Barnett
Plaintiff
Cab Asset Management, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LESLIE BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAB ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

Defendant. /

No. C 09-6108 MHP

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Re: Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

On December 31, 2009, plaintiff Leslie Barnett filed this action against Cab Asset

Management, LLC (“Cab Asset”) alleging that Cab Asset violated the Fair Debt Collections

Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal.

Civ. Code §§ 1788 et seq. Docket No. 1 (Complaint). On March 29, 2010, the clerk of this court

entered default against Cab Asset. Docket No. 7 (Default). On May 3, 2010, plaintiff sought

judgment against Cab Asset in the amount of $4,884.01. Docket No. 9 (Motion).

Plaintiff is entitled to up to $2,000 in statutory damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A) (“in the

case of any action by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not

exceeding $1,000”); Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.30(b) (“Any debt collector who willfully and knowingly

violates this title with respect to any debtor shall, in addition to actual damages sustained by the

debtor as a result of the violation, also be liable to the debtor only in an individual action, and his

additional liability therein to that debtor shall be for a penalty in such amount as the court may

allow, which shall not be less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor greater than one thousand dollars

($1,000).”). Based on plaintiff’s allegations, the court awards plaintiff $2,000 in statutory damages.

Case 3:09-cv-06108-MHP Document 13 Filed 06/03/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff is also entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) (“in the case of

any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together with a

reasonable attorney’s fee as determined by the court.”). Plaintiff seeks $1,972.40 in attorneys’ fees

and $411.61 in costs. Both are reasonable. The court awards plaintiff $2,384.01 in fees and costs.

The court declines to award plaintiff anticipated collection costs of $500 as plaintiff did not

provide authority for such an award. 15 U.S.C. section 1692k(a)(3) does not speak to anticipated

collection costs.

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is awarded $4,384.01. The clerk of the court shall enter

judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2010 

MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

Northern District of California

Case 3:09-cv-06108-MHP Document 13 Filed 06/03/10 Page 2 of 2