Lapland v. Willow-Brookes Solutions LLC

Filing 17

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; GRANTING 8 MOTION for Default Judgment as to Defendant Willow-Brookes Solutions LLC by Plaintiff Briette Lapland. Defendant Willow-Brookes Solutions LLC ORDERED to pay Plaintiff Briette Lapland a total of Sixty Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Five Dollars ($60,565.00) as detailed in the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge William C Lee on 3/12/15. (cer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
BRIETTE LAPLAND,
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLOW-BROOKES SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 3:14cv1665

AMENDED OPINION AND ORDER
On January 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment be granted and that she be awarded $60,565.00, for violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. Defendant has not filed a response to the Report and
Recommendation.
For the following reasons, the undersigned adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation.
Discussion
With respect to pretrial matters dispositive of a claim or defense, the district court
reviews “de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected
to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Should a party make objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation, such objections must be “specific” and “written.” Id. at 72(b)(2). “The
district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. at 72(b)(3).
In the present case, the Magistrate Judge clearly set out the background of the case,
including the eleven alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The
Magistrate Judge noted that even though the Defendant was served with summons and complaint

via certified mail, the Defendant did not respond in any way to Plaintiff’s complaint. After
Plaintiff moved for entry of default judgment, a telephonic status conference was held, at which
Defendant did not appear and the motion for entry of default judgment was referred to the
Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge held a hearing on the motion and, again, Defendant did not attend.
Plaintiff testified and submitted exhibits to the court, supporting her claims. The Magistrate
Judge determined that Plaintiff was entitled to default judgment and, after carefully analyzing the
evidence, further determined that Plaintiff was entitled to damages totaling $60,565.00
As noted, there were no objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and, upon review, the undersigned finds that the Report and Recommendation
is in accordance with the law and therefore will be adopted.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned adopts Magistrate Judge Nuechterlein’s
Report and Recommendation.
Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [DE 8] is hereby GRANTED. Further, the
Defendant is ORDERED to pay the Plaintiff a total of $60,565.00, as detailed in the Report and
Recommendation.

Entered: March 12 , 2015.

s/ William C. Lee
William C. Lee, Judge
United States District Court

2