Risorto v. Malcolm S Gerald & Associates, Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting 20 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment and Attorney's Fees [# 17 ], filed February 12, 2014, is GRANTED. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 4/2/2014.(klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02993-REB-BNB
SIMONA RISORTO,
Plaintiff,
v.
MALCOLM S. GERALD & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is the Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge [#20],1 filed March 13, 2014. No objection having been filed, I review the
recommendation for plain error only. See Morales-Fernandez v. Immigration &
Naturalization Service, 418 F.3d 1116, 1122 (10th Cir. 2005). Finding no such error in
the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition, I find and conclude that the
recommendation should be approved and adopted.
As more thoroughly set forth in the recommendation, this case was filed in this
court under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.,
affording me federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff duly served
defendant in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1). (See Affidavit of Service [#5],

1

“[#20]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.

filed November 25, 2013.) Personal jurisdiction is proper in this district. Defendant
failed to answer or otherwise respond within the time permitted by law. The clerk of the
court entered default against defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) on November 29,
2013 [#14]. Plaintiff therefore is entitled to default judgment against these defendants
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).
In failing to respond or otherwise appear, defendant has admitted the factual
allegations of the complaint other than those relating to damages. See FED. R. CIV. P.
8(d); see also Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Huddleston, 94 F.3d 1413, 1415
(10th Cir. 1996); 10A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal
Practice and Procedure § 2688 at 58-59 (3rd ed. 1998). The magistrate judge has
described how these allegations establish defendant’s violation of the FDCPA and
plaintiff’s entitlement to statutory damages and attorney fees and costs thereunder.
(Recommendation ¶¶ 4-13 at 3-6.) I concur with the magistrate judge’s assessment
that the admitted allegations establish plaintiff’s entitlement to the full amount of
statutory damages available under the FDCPA and to attorney fees as assessed by the
magistrate judge.2
I therefore find and conclude that the recommendation should be approved and
adopted, and the motion for default judgment granted.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

2

The magistrate judge reduced plaintiff’s fee request, and plaintiff has not objected to his
calculation of the lodestar. I perceive no error, much less plain error, in his determinations in this regard
either.

2

1. That the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#20], filed
Marc h 13, 2014, is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as an order of this court;
2. That the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment and Attorney’s Fees
[#17], filed February 12, 2014, is GRANTED;
3. That default judgment SHALL ENTER for the plaintiff, Simona Risorto,
against the defendant, Malcolm S. Gerald & Associates, Inc., on plaintiff’s claim for
statutory damages under the FDCPA;
4. That for defendant’s violation of the FDCPA, plaintiff is AWARDED $1,000.00
in statutory damages and $2,417.50 in attorney fees; and
5. That plaintiff is AWARDED her costs, to be taxed by the clerk of the court
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) and D.C.COLO.LCivR 54.1.
Dated April 2, 2014, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

3