Cruz v. International Collection Corporation et al

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING 72 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 3/24/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/24/2010)

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

**E-Filed 3/24/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

HERMINIA LORENZO CRUZ Plaintiff, v.

Case Number C 08-991 JF (RS) ORDER1 DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Doc. 72

INTERNATIONAL COLLECTION CORPORATION, a California corporation, CHARLES D. HENDRICKSON, individually and in his official capacity, Defendant

Defendants International Collection Corporation ("ICC"), Charles Hendrickson ("Hendrickson"), and Franklin Love ("Love") (collectively "Defendants") seek reconsideration of the Court's order of December 18, 2009 awarding Plaintiff Herminia Lorenzo Cruz ("Cruz") statutory damages, statutory penalties, and attorney fees and costs under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("RFDCPA").

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

C a s e No. C 08-991 JF (RS) O R D E R DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( JF E X 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

For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied. Cruz did not seek, and was not awarded, statutory damages under the RFDCPA. On September 30, 2009, the Court granted Cruz summary judgment on her FDCPA claim but inadvertently did not include an award of damages. Cruz then filed a motion seeking alteration and amendment of the judgment to include an award of statutory damages, fees and costs under the statute. The order of December 18, 2009 awarded Cruz $1,000.00 in damages as well as reasonable attorney's fees and costs according to proof. Defendants also claim that because Cruz did not provide any evidence of damages, she should not have been awarded damages under the FDCPA. However, the Court already has held that the FDCPA is a strict liability statute. Statutory damages are based upon the Court's assessment of the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of the noncompliance, and the extent to which the noncompliance was intentional. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692(k)(a)(2)(A). Defendants offer no new arguments as to why the $1,000 statutory award is erroneous. Accordingly, the motion will be DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 24, 2010

JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

2
C a s e No. C 08-991 JF (RS) O R D E R DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ( JF E X 2 )