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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 

[ECF No. 138] 

I. INTRODUCTION 

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

against iServe Servicing, Inc. Pittman seeks 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. The Court held an evidentiary 

hearing via videoconference on April 20, 2020 to determine the appropriate 

damages. 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3044 Page 1 of 10
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 reported 

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

they were made in violation of the FCRA. 

iServe actively participated in this case until February 2018. On 

December 18, 2018, then 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 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3045 Page 2 of 10
3 

the conference 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 withdraw 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 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3046 Page 3 of 10
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 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 amended 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3047 Page 4 of 10
5 

complaint sufficiently alleges facts to support his claims of negligent and 

willful violation of the FCRA. 

Pittman is entitled to default judgment. 

b. Pittman is Entitled to Damages 

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

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

refinancing of his auto loan to 1.99% interest, and his difficulty sleeping and 

increased blood pressure due to the 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. 

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 the appropriate damages amount. Hart 

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

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3048 Page 5 of 10
6 

1. Compensatory Damages 

Pittman seeks $25,000 in compensatory damages. He says he was 

denied a Home Depot credit card and a low interest rate on an auto loan. He 

also notes difficulty sleeping and an unhealthy increase in his blood 

pressure, resulting in a higher dosage of blood pressure medication. He 

attributes all of this to iServe’s conduct. Pittman testified to the same at the 

evidentiary hearing. 

This district has held that testimony alone is enough to substantiate an 

award for emotional distress. Green v. Nationwide Arbitration Services, LLC, 

2015 WL 7717165 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 30, 2015). In Green, the Court awarded 

plaintiff actual monetary damages and damages for emotional distress. The 

court noted the plaintiff “appeared and testified to her actual monetary 

damages and damages for emotional distress.” Id. at *1. Green relied on 

Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003), 

where the Ninth Circuit upheld an award for emotional distress damages 

based on the plaintiff’s testimony. 

The Court finds Pittman’s testimony credible. His testimony is 

supported by a previously submitted affidavit. [ECF No. 91-16]. Pittman is 

entitled to actual and emotional distress damages in the amount of $25,000. 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3049 Page 6 of 10
7 

2. Punitive Damages 

Pittman seeks $25,000 in punitive damages. The Supreme Court has 

not created a formulaic system to gauge the constitutionality of punitive 

damage awards. Bach v. First Union Nat. Bank, 486 F.3d 150, 156 (6th Cir. 

2007). The constitutionally correct amount of punitive damages is a “highly 

fact-intensive exercise.” Id. The Court considers three factors in determining 

punitive damages: (1) the reprehensibility of the defendant’s misconduct; (2) 

the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff – 

the injury covered by compensatory damages – and the punitive damages 

award; and (3) the difference between the relevant punitive damages award 

and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in similar cases. Id. at 153. 

The most important factor the Court must consider is the first – the 

reprehensibility of iServe. The Court must consider whether: “the harm 

caused was physical as opposed to economic; the tortious conduct evinced 

an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; 

the target of the conduct had financial vulnerability; the conduct involved 

repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm was the result of 

intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.” State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 419 (2003). The Supreme Court 

instructed that the existence of any one factor weighing in favor of a plaintiff 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3050 Page 7 of 10
8 

may not be sufficient to sustain a punitive damages award, and the absence 

of all will render any award suspect. Id. The Supreme Court said “[i]t should 

be presumed a plaintiff has been made whole for his injuries by 

compensatory damages, so punitive damages should only be awarded if the 

defendant’s culpability, after having paid compensatory damages, is so 

reprehensible as to warrant the imposition of further sanctions to achieve 

punishment or deterrence.” Id. 

Like Bach, Pittman satisfies two of these factors: he is financially 

vulnerable, and the conduct involved repeated actions. Pittman testified that 

he was denied a Home Depot credit card and was denied a low interest rate 

for an auto loan that he would have qualified for absent iServe’s conduct. 

iServe continuously reported his mortgage payments as past due even after 

he advised them its reporting was inaccurate. Although the punitive damages 

award in Bach followed a jury trial rather than a default judgment, the Court 

applies the same reasoning here. 

In Bach, the Sixth Circuit found a punitive damages award at or near 

the amount of the compensatory damages were appropriate where the 

defendant, First Union National Bank, continued to report unfavorable credit 

information regarding Bach, even after Bach notified them that the 

information was inaccurate – the same as Pittman. 486 F.3d at 155. The 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3051 Page 8 of 10
9 

Sixth Circuit called First Union National Bank’s conduct “blameworthy,” and 

noted its actions “merit strong disapproval and justify an award of punitive 

damages.” Id. at 155. The Court finds iServe’s conduct justifies an award of 

punitive damages to achieve deterrence, and an award in the same amount 

of the compensatory actual damages is appropriate. 

3. Costs and Attorney’s Fees 

Pittman seeks attorney’s fees in the amount of $110,665.15. 

The Court has broad discretion to determine a reasonable hourly rate 

for an attorney. The Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. Husted, 

831 F.3d 686, 715 (6th Cir. 2016). To do so, courts use as a guideline the 

prevailing market rate, which is defined as “‘the rate that lawyers of 

comparable skill and experience can reasonably expect to command within 

the venue of the court of record.’” Id. (quoting Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 

784, 791 (6th Cir. 2004). Pittman’s counsel submits the statement of costs 

and attorney’s fees and the 2017 State Bar of Michigan Economics of Law 

Practice Report. The Court finds the State Bar of Michigan’s Economics of 

Law Practice Survey is a reliable tool and, given the longevity of this case, 

finds Pittman’s attorneys’ fees are reasonable. 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3052 Page 9 of 10
10 

V. CONCLUSION 

Pittman is entitled to judgment; $25,000 in compensatory damages, 

$25,000 in punitive damages, and $110,665.15 in attorney’s fees and costs. 

The Court enters default judgment for Pittman in the amount of 

$160,665.15 against iServe Servicing, Inc. 

IT IS ORDERED. 

Dated: June 3, 2020 s/ Victoria A. Roberts 

 Victoria A. Roberts 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-13591-VAR-SDD ECF No. 143 filed 06/03/20 PageID.3053 Page 10 of 10