Jackson v. Brashears

Filing 31

RULING granting 17 Motion for Default Judgment. The court will enter a Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant. Signed by Judge Shelly D. Dick on 9/25/2014. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALFRED JACKSON
VS.
BENNIE BRASHEARS

*
*
*
*
*

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-288-SDD-RLB

RULING
Plaintiff, Alfred Jackson, filed this action against the Defendant, Bennie Brashears,
alleging several violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA” or “the Act”).1
Following the Defendant’s failure to answer the Complaint or otherwise defend this action,
Plaintiff moved for the Clerk’s entry of default,2 which was entered on October 4, 2013.3
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Enter Judgment and Set Hearing Date on Damages.4 The Court
set this motion for hearing, and Plaintiff presented testimony and evidence in support of his
motion on August 5, 2014.5 The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a memorandum of authority
supporting the amount of damages he requested in this matter. In accordance with this
order, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Support of Default Judgment.6 Considering both the
testimony and evidence presented at the hearing and the argument and jurisprudence in

1

15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.

2

Rec. Doc. No. 12.

3

Rec. Doc. No. 15.

4

Rec. Doc. No. 17.

5

Rec. Doc. No. 26.

6

Rec. Doc. No. 30.

Doc 2150

1

Plaintiff’s supporting memorandum, the Court now finds that entry of a default judgment is
proper.
Plaintiff has presented evidence which establishes that the Defendant violated the
FDCPA in several ways. First, in an apparent attempt at debt collection, Defendant sent
a letter to Plaintiff masquerading as a law firm on purported law firm letterhead in violation
of Section 1692e(3) of the Act. This letter also failed to contain language constituting the
validation notice required by Section 1692g of the Act. Additionally, the letter violated
Section 1692e(2)(A) of the Act by misrepresenting that there was an eviction suit already
filed against Plaintiff when no such suit existed, and further advised him of fictitious court
costs obviously not due since no suit was actually filed. Plaintiff contends these violations
entitle him to statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1692k in the amount of $1,000.00.
Plaintiff also contends he is entitled to actual damages as the FDCPA permits
recovery for emotional trauma suffered as a result of statutory violations. Plaintiff cited
several decisions wherein courts have awarded damages for emotional distress in factually
similar cases. Plaintiff requests an award of $5,000.00 in actual damages for the stress,
humiliation, and embarrassment he testified that he has suffered at the false threat of an
eviction suit and court costs. Plaintiff testified that he believed he was about to be
homeless and went to the law firm that purportedly sent the letter to address the problem
only to discover the falsity of the allegations.
The Court finds the unrefuted acts committed by the Defendant to be particularly
egregious in this matter. The Court also finds that Plaintiff is entitled to both statutory
damages for the violations of the Act and compensatory damages for the clear emotional
distress suffered as a result of Defendant’s deceptive and illegal conduct. Thus, the Court
Doc 2150

2

grants the Motion for Default Judgment7 and will enter a Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff
and against the Defendant, ordering Defendant to pay Plaintiff damages in the amount of
$6,000.00.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on September 25, 2014.

S
JUDGE SHELLY D. DICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

7

Rec. Doc. No. 17.

Doc 2150

3