Free Memorandum in Support of Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

I- Case 3:03-cv-00173-II/IRK Document 10-2 Filed 12/1I[2003 ‘ Page1 of 4 I
C IU I
_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I
I
I
WRIGHTZENGTON : L E D I
‘ v. : NO. 3:02cv1175 (JBQEBIE 2 33PH'U3
NATIOMIIDE CAPITAL RECOVERY, ‘ fj}, UR§__i>{§»_‘I£Ij£_r cane; I
Jom: FORSYTHE : ` “‘” **“‘L*·C¤‘II"• I
ENDORSEMENT ORDER [Dog. 39] I
I
as In I __ Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b){l)(A) and Rule 2 of the Local I
Rules for United States Magistrates (D.Conn. 1995), after review andu I I
absent any objection filed, this ruling is APPROVED and ADOPTED as
the ruling of this Court. Judgment shall enter in favor of the
plaintiff against defendants in the total amount of $7,440.44,
including fees and costs.
The Clerk is directed to Close this Case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at New Haven, Connecticut: Februagy 12, 2003 __ _ _ __ __ _ _ in

` I
I



,__ _` Cas 3:03-cv-00173-l}r{tI§KPm Document 10-2 Filed 127i&§ji/2003 Page 2 of 4 {
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT] ! ft
in i` `Z ». Q": ;‘·-·.
................ ......... ..........,............ .. ........ x ""‘; O 6 -* " lil UJ
‘ LESLIE WRIGHTINGTON . 3:02 C\}ftL1.75_fJ_BA)
DATE: JAN. 6, 2003 Q
NATIONWIDE CAPITAL RECOVERY, etal. :
------------- ···-— —---- -· ---· - ——----------- ··—· ··——— ~— -—-- -·--X
i ,. . . · ...»_ . “,?.>,i·4-=,,t._~.r ·--.,, Jr . I _ I I ‘=- _ _ · ,
. RECOMMENDED RULING ON EIAINTIFPS MQ I ION FQR DEFAULT JUDGMENT -
Plaintiff Hled this action on July 10, 2002, naming as defendants Nationwide Capital
Recovery and its president, John Forsythe. (Dkt. #1). Defendant Forsythe received
i service of process on September 3, 2002 and defendant Nationwide Capital Recovery on
· September 4, 2002. (Dkt. #3). On September 30, 2002, plaintiff filed a Request to Enter
. Default against defendants for failure to answer, which the Clerk granted four days later.
(Dkt. #4). On November 4, 2002, plaintiff filed a Motion for Judgment Upon Default and
brief in support against defendants (Dkts. ##5-6), which United States District Judge Janet
Bond Arterton granted on December 27, 2002, after defendants failed to respond. (Dkt.
#7). That same day, this motion was referred to this Magistrate Judge for a recommended i
_ ruling on damages. (Dkt. #8). _
l Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. iudgment by default may be entered
by the court upon application and after written notice is served upon the defaulting party:
I lf, in order to enable the court to enterjudgment or to carry it into effect, it is
— necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to
establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation
I of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such
references as it deems necessary and proper and shall accord a right of
trial by jury to the parties when and as required by any statute of the United
States.
FED. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). I I
I th
A0 72A _ . i A
IRcv.8l82}
J I

l
Lg ` Cas 3:03-cv-00173-ll/|Fi,K Document 10-2 Filed Page 3 of 4 I I
Under Rule 55(b)(2) this court has the discretion to enter a default judgment {
` without a hearing, as long as the party against whom the judgment is sought has notice of
the impending judgment, and detailed affidavits or documentary evidence are available to
. ensure that there is a basis for the specific judgment entered. i
Qlaims Agency, lng. v, Age Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997)(citing I
g QontiCommodity Servs., Inc., 8?3 F.2d 38, 39-40 (2d Cir 1989)); ,
Adam Caterers lng., 13 F.3d 51, 54 (2d. Cir. 1993)(a single affidavit only partially based
Z ` `L on real numbers would not be enough.);
I 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6662 at *5 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)("The Court need not hold a hearing . . .
as long as it has: (i) determined the proper rule for calculating damages on the claim, and i
(ii) the plaintiffs evidence establishes, with reasonable certainty, the basis for the J
1 damages specified in the default judgment"). On the other hand, the "strong policies
favoring the resolution of genuine disputes on their merits," as well as the possibility of "
n relief from the default judgment "for good cause shown," ln re Magin-Trigopa, 763 F.2d
503, 505 (2d Cir. 1985), limits the discretion of this court, and justifies the requirement of
"strict compliance with the legal prerequisites establishing the court's power to render the
judgment [sought]." Varnes v. Local 91, Glass Bottle Blowers, 674 F.2d 1365, 1369 (11th
Cir. 1982). L t _ , _ . I P i
in the present case, plaintiff alleges that defendant, Nationwide Capital Recovery, P ‘"`
· _ an unlicensed consumer collection agency which has been the subject of prior complaints,
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ["FDCPA"], 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, f & g, by
mailing ptaintiff a misleading letter, dated March 20, 2002, seeking to collect a personal bill
in the amount of $54.04. (Dkt. #5). Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to FDCPA, a strict
liability statute, and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ["CUPTA"]. (Dkt. #6).
Plaintiff requests $1,000 statutory damages pursuant to FDCPA, $5,000 punitive damages
l *2
t>·°sT*L7a» l
l



4 ` Ca e 3:03-cv-00173—§jij§K_ Document 10-2 Filecs 12/1{;ty{%0O3 Page 4 of 4 I I I
r` ` ` I
pursuant to CUTPA, $1,200 in attorney’s fees and $240.44 for costs, totaling $7,440.44,
(Dkt. #5). `
lf the documentary evidence of damages is sufficient to justify entry of a judgment
without a hearing, and no objection is made by defendant thereto, this court will not
hesitate to exercise its discretion under Rule 55(b)(2) and grant plaintiff the judgment I
sought. §ee Ackerman v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 842 (2d Cir. 1986)("By defaulting, a I
defendant ensures that a judgment will be entered against him, and assumes the risk that I
· an irrevocable mistake of law or fact may underlie that judgment.")(citations omitted). ln
this case, the proof of the damages that plaintiff is seeking from defendants has been
provided in detailed affidavits and documentary evidence substantiating the harm plaintiff
claims to have suffered. Additionally, plaintiff has served copies of the above to the
delendants. Accordingly, plaintiffs request for entry of default judgment (Dkt. #5) in the I
amount $1,000 statutory damages pursuant to FDCPA, $5,000 punitive damages pursuant
to CUTPA, $1,200 in attorney’s fees and $240.44 for costs, totaling $7,440.44 is granted.
Se; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be filed within ten
days after service of same); FED. R. Ctv. P. 6(a), 6(e) 8. 72; Rule 2 of the Local Rules for
Uniited States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court for the District of I
Connecticut; §mail v. §ggreta;y, H&HS, 892 F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure to file
···""’ timtely objection to Magistrate Judge’s recommended ruling may preclude further- I- I
appeal to Second Circuit). · _
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 6th day of January, 2003.
I Qggazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge
?£¤Ig¢82) I I I
. -.......__................- . I

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I