Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03107/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-03107-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fidelis Recovery Management, LLC
Defendant
Stanley D. Justice
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY D. JUSTICE,

Plaintiff,

v.

FIDELIS RECOVERY MANAGEMENT, 

LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:18-CV-3107-TLN-DMC

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action for 

violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and 

California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See ECF No. 1. Pending before the 

Court is plaintiff’s unopposed motion for default judgment. See ECF No. 9. 

Where a defendant has failed to respond to the complaint, the Court presumes that 

all well-pleaded factual allegations relating to liability are true. See Geddes v. United Financial 

Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (per curiam); Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386 (9th 

Cir. 1978); Televideo Systems, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987) (per 

curiam); see also Discovery Communications, Inc. v. Animal Planet, Inc., 172 F. Supp. 2d 1282, 

1288 (C.D. Cal. 2001). Therefore, when determining liability, a defendant's default functions as 

an admission of the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations of fact. See Panning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 

Case 2:18-cv-03107-TLN-DMC Document 15 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 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

2

1386 (9th Cir. 1978). 

While factual allegations concerning liability are deemed admitted upon a 

defendant’s default, the court does not presume that any factual allegations relating to the amount 

of damages suffered are true. See Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560. The Court must ensure that the 

amount of damages awarded is reasonable and demonstrated by the evidence. See id. In 

discharging its responsibilities, the Court may conduct such hearings and make such orders as it 

deems necessary. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). In assessing damages, the Court must review the 

facts of record, requesting more information if necessary, to establish the amount to which 

plaintiff is lawfully entitled. See Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1 (1944).

In his motion for default judgment, plaintiff argues that the facts alleged in the 

complaint establish violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and California’s Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 

(RFDCPA). See ECF No. 9, pg. 2. For damages, plaintiff requests, among other things, 

$30,000.00 in treble statutory damages under the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) & 

(C) ($1,500.00 per each of 20 calls in violation). See id. at 3. 

Neither the complaint nor the declarations filed in support of plaintiff’s motion, 

however, establish the number of calls defendant made or caused to be made in violation of the 

TCPA. In order to discharge the Court’s duty to ensure the amount of damages awarded is 

reasonable and supported by evidence, see Geddes, 559 F.2d at 560, plaintiff will be granted an 

opportunity to provide additional evidence to support the request for treble statutory damages 

under the TCPA, see Pope, 323 U.S. 1. If no such evidence is filed within the time allowed 

herein, the Court will rule on plaintiff’s motion on the current record. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may file additional 

evidence in support of his motion for default judgment within 30 days of the date of this order. 

Dated: March 5, 2020

____________________________________

DENNIS M. COTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:18-cv-03107-TLN-DMC Document 15 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 2