CROWELL v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC et al
Filing
34
ORDER granting 26 and 31 Motions for Default Judgment. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 6/24/2019 (tlf).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
DELOISE CROWELL,
*
Plaintiff,
*
vs.
*
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-63 (CDL)
THE MONEY TREE OF GEORGIA, INC., *
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion
for default judgment as to The Money Tree of Georgia, Inc. (ECF
Nos. 26 & 31).
As discussed below, the motion is granted.
Plaintiff presented evidence that her process server served
the Summons and Amended Complaint on Linda Sanders “as Manager /
Authorized
Agent
for
The
Money
Tree
of
Georgia
Inc.
at
the
address of 39 E May St, Ste E, Winder, GA 30680” on November 27,
2018.
Aff. of Service, ECF No. 19.
The Court ordered Plaintiff
to show cause why the agent she served with the Complaint is the
appropriate agent for service.
No. 27.
Text Order (Mar. 22, 2019), ECF
Plaintiff responded to the show cause order, asserting
that The Money Tree of Georgia, Inc. was properly served under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and O.C.G.A. § 9-11-4 because
Linda Sanders was a manager at The Money Tree of Georgia, Inc.’s
Winder store location.
A corporation may be served “by delivering a copy of the
summons
and
of
the
complaint
to
an
officer,
a
managing
or
general agent, or any other agent authorized by appointment or
by law to receive service of process” or “by following state law
for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general
jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or
where service is made.”
Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
be
served
by
president
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1)(B); Fed. R.
Under Georgia law, a Georgia corporation may
delivering
or
other
the
officer
summons
of
such
and
complaint
corporation
“to
or
the
foreign
corporation, a managing agent thereof, or a registered agent
thereof.”
O.C.G.A.
§
9-11-4(e)(1)(A).
“[T]he
term
‘managing
agent’ means a person employed by a corporation . . . who is at
an office or facility in this state and who has managerial or
supervisory
authority
corporation[.]”
for
O.C.G.A.
§
such
corporation
9-11-4(e)(1)(B).
or
And,
foreign
an
“agent
authorized to receive service has been defined as one whose
position is ‘such as to afford reasonable assurance that he will
inform his corporate principal that such process has been served
upon him.’” Ogles v. Globe Oil Co., U.S.A., 320 S.E.2d 848, 849
(Ga. Ct. App. 1984) (quoting Scott v. Atlanta Dairies Co-op.,
238 S.E.2d 340, 343 (Ga. 1977)).
store
who
is
responsible
for
The manager of a corporation’s
the
store’s
daily
operations,
“including supervision of other store employees and submission
2
of daily reports to corporate headquarters,” is “a qualified
agent upon whom to perfect service of process.”
Id.
Based on the present record, the Court finds that Plaintiff
adequately served The Money Tree of Georgia, Inc. by delivering
the
summons
Accordingly,
allegations
and
The
in
amended
Money
complaint
Tree
Plaintiff’s
of
to
Georgia,
Amended
Linda
Inc.
Complaint
by
Sanders.
admitted
its
the
default.
See, e.g., Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc.,
561 F.3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (“A ‘defendant, by his
default,
admits
the
plaintiff’s
well-pleaded
allegations
of
fact. . . .’”) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co. v. Houston Nat’l
Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)).
Money
Tree
of
Georgia,
Inc.
(“Money
By its default, The
Tree”)
admitted
the
following allegations:
Plaintiff had trade lines with Money Tree. Plaintiff filed
for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and those trade lines were
discharged in bankruptcy in 2011. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8-10, ECF
No. 15.
In August 2017, Plaintiff obtained her Equifax credit
report and saw that Money Tree reported Plaintiff’s trade
lines
on
Plaintiff’s
Equifax
credit
report
without
indicating that the accounts were discharged in bankruptcy.
Id. ¶¶ 7, 11.
Plaintiff disputed the report with Equifax on November 28,
2017; she attached to her dispute the Order of Discharge,
and she asked that the trade lines be reported as
discharged in bankruptcy. Id. ¶¶ 12-13.
Equifax
¶ 14.
forwarded
Plaintiff’s
3
dispute
to
Money
Tree
Id.
Plaintiff obtained her Equifax credit report on January 15,
2018.
The Money Tree trade lines were still reported
without indicating that they had been discharged in
bankruptcy. Id. ¶ 15.
Even after Plaintiff disputed the report, Money Tree
willfully failed to conduct a proper investigation of
Plaintiff’s dispute and willfully failed to direct Equifax
to correct Plaintiff’s credit report. Id. ¶¶ 25-26.
Plaintiff suffered credit and emotional damages as a result
of the Money Tree’s failure to correct its report.
Id.
¶ 16.
The
Fair
Credit
Reporting
Act
requires
a
furnisher
of
credit information who receives a dispute regarding the accuracy
of information it reported to a consumer reporting agency to
investigate the issue.
disputed
information
furnisher
must
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b).
is
found
promptly
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1).
to
modify
be
that
And, if the
inaccurate,
item
of
then
the
information.
Based on Plaintiff’s allegations,
which Money Tree admitted by its default, Money Tree willfully
failed to conduct a proper investigation of Plaintiff’s dispute
and willfully failed to direct Equifax to correct Plaintiff’s
credit
report.
Instead,
Money
Tree
continued
to
report
inaccurate information on Plaintiff’s credit report even though
a reasonable investigation into Plaintiff’s dispute would have
revealed that the information was inaccurate.
The Court is
satisfied that these admitted allegations establish a willful
violation of the Act.
See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551
U.S. 47, 71 (2007) (finding that a willful violation of the Fair
4
Credit Reporting Act occurs when there is a knowing or reckless
disregard of a requirement of the Act).
If a furnisher of credit information willfully fails to
comply with the requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
then the furnisher is liable to the consumer “in an amount equal
to the sum of . . . any actual damages sustained by the consumer
as a result of the failure or damages of not less than $100 and
not
more
than
$1,000,”
determined by the Court.”
Plaintiff
originally
plus
“reasonable
attorney’s
15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a).
sought
Tree’s violation of the Act.
actual
damages
fees
as
In this case,
caused
by
Money
The Court scheduled an evidentiary
hearing to determine the amount of damages.
Neither Plaintiff
nor her attorney appeared for the hearing, and Plaintiff amended
her motion to seek only $1,000.00 in statutory damages plus
attorney’s fees.
The Court hereby awards Plaintiff $1,000.00 in
statutory damages against Money Tree.
Plaintiff
attorney’s fees.
is
also
entitled
to
costs
and
reasonable
She requested costs of $480.00 and attorney’s
fees in the amount of $11,333.00.
The Court reviewed counsel’s
declaration in support of the request for attorney’s fees and
the supporting billing records.
Counsel’s submission supports
the requested costs of $480.00, and the Court hereby awards
those costs to Plaintiff.
With regard to attorney’s fees, based
on the Court’s review, several of the time entries relate solely
5
to Plaintiff’s settlement of her claims against Equifax.
The
Court finds that it would not be reasonable to include those
fees, which add up to approximately $864.00, in the fee award
against
Money
Tree.
The
Court
finds
that
$10,469.00
is
a
reasonable attorney’s fee and awards that amount to Plaintiff
and against Money Tree.
In
summary,
the
statutory
damages,
attorney’s
fees
judgment
in
$480.00
against
favor
Court
of
awards
in
Money
Plaintiff
costs,
Tree.
Plaintiff
and
The
and
$1,000.00
in
$10,469.00
in
Clerk
against
shall
Money
enter
Tree
in
accordance with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 24th day of June, 2019.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
6
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?