Lassiter v. Pinnacle Financial Group Incorporated
Filing
99
ORDER. ORDERED that the parties' Stipulated Motion For Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of The Plaintiff And Against The Defendant [Docket No. 97] is GRANTED. ORDERED that plaintiff shall be awarded thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00), which amount is inclusive of plaintiff's costs and reasonable attorney's fees. ORDERED that plaintiff Phebe Lassiter's Motion for Attorneys Fees and Expenses [Docket No. 79] and defendant Integrity Solution Services, Inc.'s Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs [Docket No. 85] are each DENIED as moot. ORDERED that the Bill of Costs filed by the Clerk of the Court [Docket No. 84] is VACATED by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 11/04/14. (jhawk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-00268-PAB-MJW
PHEBE LASSITER,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTEGRITY SOLUTION SERVICES, INC., a Missouri corporation,
formerly known as Pinnacle Financial Group Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation,
Defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulated Motion For Entry Of
Judgment In Favor Of The Plaintiff And Against The Defendant [Docket No. 97]. The
parties stipulate to an entry of judgment in favor of plaintiff Phebe Lassiter and against
defendant Integrity Solution Services, Inc. in the amount of thirty thousand dollars,
inclusive of plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs.
On March 18, 2014, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary
judgment as to defendant’s liability for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. Docket No. 69. After the Court’s entry of partial
summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, the parties waived their right to a jury trial and
agreed that the Court should determine an amount of statutory damages to be awarded
to plaintiff. Docket No. 72. On May 15, 2014, the Court awarded plaintiff $150.00 in
statutory damages. Docket No. 77. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff filed a motion for
attorney’s fees and expenses seeking attorney’s fees in the amount of $35,750.00, plus
post-judgment interest and any additional fees expended in seeking the award of
attorney’s fees. Docket No. 79 at 9. On May 30, 2014, plaintiff submitted a proposed
bill of costs, claiming that plaintiff’s costs totaled $3,885.26. Docket No. 80 at 1. On
June 3, 2014, costs were taxed by the Clerk of the Court in the amount of $3,278.42.
Docket No. 84. On June 10, 2014, def endant filed a motion for review of taxation of
costs, which argued that plaintiff’s decision to take a video deposition was unnecessary
and needlessly increased plaintiff’s costs. Docket No. 85 at 3-4. Defendant requested
that plaintiff’s award of costs be reduced by $1,079.02, the costs associated with the
videotaping of the deposition. Id. at 5.
The stipulated motion seeks a final judgment against defendant in the amount of
$30,000, as well as an order mooting plaintiff’s motion for attorney’s fees and
defendant’s motion for review of costs. The Court finds this result to be reasonable in
light of the agreed-upon amount and the risk that plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees
will be reduced upon the Court’s review of the record.
Wherefore, it is
ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Motion For Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of
The Plaintiff And Against The Defendant [Docket No. 97] is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff shall be awarded thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00),
which amount is inclusive of plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. It is further
2
ORDERED that plaintiff Phebe Lassiter’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and
Expenses [Docket No. 79] and defendant Integrity Solution Services, Inc.’s Motion for
Review of Taxation of Costs [Docket No. 85] are each DENIED as moot. It is further
ORDERED that the Bill of Costs filed by the Clerk of the Court [Docket No. 84] is
VACATED.
DATED November 4, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
3
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?