Jackson v. TeleRecovery
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 14 MOTION For An Award Of Damages. The court hereby awards Mr. Jackson $1,000 in actual damages and $4,035.00 in attorneys' fees and costs. The Clerk is directed enter final judgment against TeleRecovery and to close this case. Signed by Judge Karon O Bowdre on 2/18/2021. (JLC)
2021 Feb-18 PM 12:13
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
TELERECOVERY, a Louisiana
Case No. 2:20-CV-01569-KOB
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AWARDING DAMAGES
This Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case comes before the court on plaintiff Ronnie
Jackson’s “Motion for an Award of Damages.” (Doc. 14). Mr. Jackson claims that defendant
TeleRecovery violated the FDCPA by failing to note that Mr. Jackson disputed a debt it
attempted to collect from him when it reported that debt to credit reporting agencies. (Doc. 1 at
2–3). The court granted Mr. Jackson default judgment as to TeleRecovery’s liability on January
6, 2021 but ordered Mr. Jackson to produce evidence as to his damages. (Doc. 13). For the
reasons discussed below, the court will GRANT Mr. Jackson’s motion and will award him
$1,000.00 in actual damages, $3,375.00 in attorneys’ fees, and his $660.00 costs; the court will
not award Mr. Jackson statutory damages.
Because the court has already entered default judgment as to TeleRecovery’s liability, the
court must now determine the amount of damages it must pay Mr. Jackson. Where, as here, the
plaintiff’s claim is not “for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation,” the
court “may conduct hearings” to, among other things, “determine the amount of damages.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 55. But because “all essential evidence is already of record” in this case, the court will
rule on Mr. Jackson’s motion without a hearing. See SEC v. Smyth, 420 F.3d 1225, 1232 n.13
(11th Cir. 2005) (citing SEC v. First Fin. Grp. of Tex., Inc., 659 F.2d 660, 669 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Although TeleRecovery did not respond to Mr. Jackson’s complaint, to his motion for
default judgment, or to his instant motion for damages, a defaulted defendant does not admit the
amount of damages sought by the plaintiff by nature of that default. See PNCEF, LLC v.
Hendricks Bldg. Supply LLC, 740 F. Supp. 2d 1287, 1292 (S.D. Ala. 2010). Instead, the court
“has an obligation to assure that…a legitimate basis [exists] for any damage award it enters.”
Anheuser Busch, Inc. v. Philpot, 317 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th Cir. 2003). The court may only
award damages against a defaulted defendant if “the record adequately reflects the basis for
award via…detailed affidavits establishing the necessary facts.” Adolph Coors Co. v. Movement
Against Racism and the Klan, 777 F.2d 1538, 1544 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing United Artists Corp.
v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979)).
As to damages under the FDCPA specifically, federal law allows courts to award three
forms of damages. First, the court may award the plaintiff “any actual damage sustained” by the
plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s failure to comply with the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692k(a)(1). Second, it may award reasonable attorneys’ fees “in the case of any successful
action to enforce…liability” under the FDCPA. § 1692k(a)(2)(3). And finally, the court may
award statutory damages of up to $1,000 after considering “relevant factors,” including “the
frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such
noncompliance, and the extent to which the debt collector’s noncompliance was intentional.”
§ 1692k(a)(2)(A); (b)(1).
Mr. Jackson first requests an award of $1,000 in actual damages based on emotional
distress. According to an affidavit signed by Mr. Jackson, “TeleRecovery’s failure to note, when
reporting the debt on [his] credit reports, that the debt was disputed made [him] feel that [he] did
not actually have the right to dispute the debt.” These actions, according to Mr. Jackson,
“alarmed, confused, and distressed” him. (Doc. 14-1 at 2).
The court concludes that Mr. Jackson has adequately supported his request for an award
of statutory damages by his affidavit. Courts routinely hold that damages for emotional distress
are cognizable as “actual damage[s]” under the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1). See, e.g.,
McGrady v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 40 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1338–39 (M.D. Ala. 1998)
(“damages for mental anguish are recoverable pursuant to § 1692k(a)(1)”). Other decisions of
this court have reached the same conclusion on facts identical to this case. See, e.g., Fletcher v.
TeleRecovery, No. 5:20-CV-1147-MHH, ECF Doc. 20 at 12 (N.D. Ala. Jan. 15, 2021); Carlisle
v. Mountain Run Sols., LLC, No. 2:20-CV-761-AKK, ECF. Doc. 22 at 2 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 3,
2020). Accordingly, the court will award Mr. Jackson $1,000 in actual damages for emotional
But the court will not award Mr. Jackson statutory damages. While statutory damages
may be available under the FDCPA, they are not automatic. As explained above, the court must
consider several factors before awarding a plaintiff statutory damages under the FDCPA. Those
factors include “the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature
of such noncompliance, and the extent to which the debt collector’s noncompliance was
intentional.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(1).
Neither Mr. Jackson’s complaint nor his affidavit support an award of statutory damages
under the § 1692k(b)(1) factors. At most, Mr. Jackson’s affidavit shows that TeleRecovery
reported one debt disputed by Mr. Jackson without noting that he disputed that debt. (Doc. 14-1
at 1–2). Accordingly, the court cannot conclude that TeleRecovery’s collection efforts were
“frequen[t] or persisten[t].” § 1692k(b)(1). See, e.g., In re Martinez, 266 B.R. 523, 537 (S.D. Fla.
2001) (awarding maximum statutory damages to FDCPA plaintiff where defendant repeatedly
violated the statute).
Additionally, as to Mr. Jackson, “the nature of [TeleRecovery’s] noncompliance” was
technical: for example, it did not make harassing phone calls to Mr. Jackson while attempting to
collect the debt; it only failed to note to credit agencies that Mr. Jackson disputed the debt. Cf.
Edwards v. Niagara Credit Sols., Inc., 586 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1349, 1354 (N.D. Ga. 2008)
(maximum award of statutory damages warranted where debt collection company had “measured
and calculated” policy of failing to disclose that it was a debt collector; additionally, company
left over 14 messages on plaintiff’s answering machine).
And finally, Mr. Jackson does not allege—and the record does not show—that
TeleRecovery intentionally failed to comply with the FDCPA. So the court will not award Mr.
Jackson statutory damages, because he has not shown that he is entitled to them under the
§ 1692k(b)(1) factors. See Fletcher, No. 5:20-CV-1147-MHH, ECF Doc. 20 at 12.
Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The court will award Mr. Jackson his attorneys’ fees and costs, but it will reduce his
attorneys’ requested hourly rate. Mr. Jackson requests $4,532.50 in attorneys’ fees for his two
attorneys’ seven hours of work at $605.00 per hour and thirty minutes of work at $595.00 per
hour. Mr. Jackson supports his request for attorneys’ fees with the extensive affidavit of one of
his attorneys, Mr. David J. Phillips. (Doc. 14-2). For example, Mr. Phillips details the numerous
FDCPA cases he has worked on and his successes in those cases. (Doc. 14-2 at 17–26). But the
court concludes, based on Mr. Phillips’s billing statement, that an hourly rate of $605 and $595
is excessive in this case. The billing statement shows that Mr. Jackson’s attorneys performed
largely rote work, such as drafting and filing the complaint—which is almost identical to the
complaint in Fletcher—and drafting and filing the motion for default judgment. (Doc. 14-2 at
Based on Mr. Phillips’s billing statement, the court will again follow Judge Haikala’s
order in Fletcher and will reduce Mr. Jackson’s attorneys’ hourly rate to $450. Fletcher, No.
5:20-CV-1147-MHH, ECF Doc. 20 at 12. The court will accordingly award Mr. Jackson
$3,375.00 in attorneys’ fees for his attorneys’ 7.5 hours of work at $450 per hour. Finally, the
court will award Mr. Jackson his $660 in costs incurred, which brings the court’s total attorneys’
fees and costs award to $4,035.00.
For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Mr. Jackson’s Motion for an Award
of Damages. (Doc. 14). The court awards Mr. Jackson $1,000 in actual damages and $4,035.00
in attorneys’ fees and costs.
The Clerk is directed enter final judgment against TeleRecovery and to close this case.
DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of February, 2021.
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?