1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

HOWARD PITTMAN, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-13591 

 HON. VICTORIA A. ROBERTS 

v. 

EXPERIAN INFORMATION 

SOLUTIONS, et al. 

 Defendants. 

____________________________/ 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT 

JUDGMENT AND SETTING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO 

DETERMINE DAMAGES [ECF No. 138] 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Howard Pittman’s Motion for Default 

Judgment as to iServe Servicing, Inc. Pittman seeks to collect damages 

arising from iServe’s alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 

(“FCRA”) 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 

Pittman is entitled to a default judgment. However, because the Court 

cannot determine the damages from the motion papers and exhibits with 

reasonable certainty, the Court will hold an evidentiary hearing on damages 

on February 24, 2020 at 3:00PM. 
2 

II. BACKGROUND 

On November 11, 2014, Pittman filed an amended complaint against 

several defendants including iServe Servicing, Inc. The complaint arises 

from Pittman’s borrowing of funds to purchase a home in August 2008. 

Pittman purchased the home with funds borrowed from Citicorp Trust Bank 

and secured a mortgage on the property. iServe serviced the loan originally 

and granted Pittman a loan modification around December 2011. Pittman 

says he paid his mortgage timely. On May 31, 2012, iServe told Pittman that 

the servicing on his loan was “assigned, sold, or transferred,” to BSI Financial 

Services, Inc., another Defendant in this case. 

In June 2014, Pittman says he learned that BSI and iServe were 

reporting his mortgage payments as past due. He disputes these reports and 

says they were made in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 

iServe actively participated in this case until February 2018. On 

December 18, 2018, Magistrate Judge Stephanie Dawkins Davis scheduled 

a settlement conference. The order required that the conference be attended 

by trial counsel and an authorized representative of each party, unless 

expressly excused by the Court. The order cautioned “[f]ailure to produce the 

appropriate person(s) at the conference may result in an award of costs and 

attorney fees incurred by the other parties in connection with the conference 
3 

and/or other sanctions against the noncomplying party and/or counsel.” [ECF 

No. 125, PageID.2746]. 

No company representative for iServe appeared at the settlement 

conference. However, Pittman’s counsel certifies in his motion that he spoke 

with iServe’s then-counsel of record during the settlement conference. He 

says iServe’s counsel stated iServe was closing its business, would not 

oppose this motion, and that he would be withdrawing as iServe’s counsel. 

iServe’s counsel withdrew on February 1, 2019. 

The Clerk of the Court entered default against iServe on November 5, 

2019. [ECF No. 137]. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

Default judgments are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Pursuant to 

Rule 55(b), the Court may enter a judgment of default against a defendant 

who fails to plead or otherwise defend against an action. To obtain a 

judgment by default, the moving party must first request for the Clerk of the 

Court to enter a default under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Shepard Claims Serv. 

Inc. v. Williams Darrah & Assoc., 796 F.2d 190, 193 (6th Cir. 1986). 

Upon entry of a default, all well-pled allegations of the plaintiff’s 

complaint are deemed admitted. Ford Motor Co. v. Cross, 441 F. Supp. 2d 
4 

837, 846 (E.D. Mich. Jun. 9, 2006) (citing Visioneering Construction v. U.S. 

Fidelity and Guaranty, 661 F.2d 119, 124 (6th Cir. 1981)). A default judgment 

on well-pled allegations only establishes a defendant’s liability; the plaintiff 

must still establish the extent of damages. RQSI Global Asset Allocation 

Master Fund, Ltd. v. APERCU International PR LLC, 2019 WL 1922052, at 

*4 (internal citations omitted). 

IV. ANALYSIS 

a. Pittman is Entitled to a Default Judgment 

The Clerk of the Court entered default against iServe on November 5, 

2019. [ECF No. 137]. iServe has neither made a request to set aside the 

default nor responded to Pittman’s motion. Further, Pittman’s counsel 

certifies iServe’s then-counsel of record stated iServe closed its business 

and would not oppose this motion. 

As explained above, upon entry of default by the Clerk of the Court, 

the well-pled factual allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint are deemed 

admitted. Ford Motor Co. v. Cross, 441 F. Supp. 2d 837, 846 (E.D. Mich. 

Jun. 9, 2006) (citing Visioneering Construction v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty, 

661 F.2d 119, 124 (6th Cir. 1981)). As such, the Court finds Pittman’s 
5 

amended complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support his claims of 

negligent and willful violation of the FCRA. 

Pittman is entitled to default judgment. 

b. The Court Will Hold an Evidentiary Hearing to Determine 

Damages with Reasonably Certainty 

Pittman seeks the following damages: (1) actual damages in the 

amount of $25,000 based on the denial of a Home Depot credit card, 

refinancing of his auto loan to 1.99% interest, and Pittman’s difficulty 

sleeping and increased blood pressure due to iServe and BSI’s inaccurate 

reporting; (2) punitive damages in the amount of $25,000 based on Pittman’s 

financial vulnerability; and (3) costs and attorney’s fees in the amount of 

$110,665.15, for a total of $160,665.15. In the alternative, Pittman asks the 

Court to hold an evidentiary hearing on damages. 

A plaintiff must prove his entitlement to the requested monetary 

damages. Id. The Court must conduct an inquiry to ascertain the amount of 

damages with reasonable certainty. Vesligaj v. Peterson, 331 F. App’x. 351, 

355 (6th Cir. 2009). Rule 55(b) authorizes the Court to hold a hearing to 

determine the amount of damages. The Court may also rely on affidavits and 

other documentary evidence to determine that appropriate damages 

amount. Hart v. Estes, 2018 WL 1914295 at *2 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 23, 2018). 
6 

Because the Court cannot determine the appropriate damages amount 

from the motion papers and exhibits, the Court will hold an evidentiary 

hearing on February 24, 2020 at 3:00PM. Counsel for Pittman must be 

prepared to present evidence in all categories of damages sought. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

Dated: December 30, 2019 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Court Judge