Slate v. Healthy Spirit, LLC
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Matthew J. Maddox on 1/28/2025. (bw5s, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
*
*
*
*
*
Plaintiff
*
*
Civ. No. MJM-23-3034
v.
*
*
HEALTHY SPIRIT, LLC,
*
d/b/a EASYREST ADJUSTABLE
*
SLEEP SYSTEMS,
*
*
Defendant.
*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * *
JOHN SLATE,
on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated,
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff John Slate (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Healthy Spirit, LLC
d/b/a EasyRest Adjustable Sleep Systems (“Defendant”), alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) No.
1. Defendant, despite being properly served, failed to appear or otherwise defend this action. ECF
No. 1. Currently pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No. 12. For the reasons
stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED.
I.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint alleges that Defendant made several telemarketing calls to Plaintiff's
cellular telephone number, despite Plaintiff having registered his number on the National Do-NotCall Registry and instructing the caller not to call back, and despite Defendant having received
numerous consumer complaints. ECF No. 1. Defendant was served with the Complaint and
1
Summons on November 16, 2023, via personal service in Baltimore, Maryland. ECF No. 5.
Defendant submitted a letter dated November 28, 2023, to the Court in response to the Summons,
which the Court rejected for failure to comply with Local Rules 101 and 102, noting the
requirement that business entities be represented by counsel. ECF No. 6.
On January 20, 2024, Plaintiff moved for Clerk’s entry of default pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 55(a), ECF No. 7, and the Clerk entered default on January 23, 2024, ECF No.
8, with notice to Defendant, ECF No. 9. Plaintiff then filed the present Motion for Default
Judgment, supported by a memorandum of law, declaration, and accompanying exhibits. ECF No.
12. Plaintiff seeks a judgment in the amount of $81,500, representing statutory damages under the
TCPA. Id. To date, Defendant has not filed an answer, appeared through counsel to participate in
this litigation, or responded to the Motion for Default Judgment.
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
The Fourth Circuit recognizes a “strong policy that cases be decided on the merits[.]”
Projects Mgmt. Co. v. Dyncorp Int’l LLC, 734 F.3d 366, 376 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States
v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450, 462 (4th Cir. 1993)). “However, default judgment is available
when the ‘adversary process has been halted because of an essentially unresponsive
party.’” Monge v. Portofino Ristorante, 751 F. Supp. 2d 789, 794 (D. Md. 2010) (quoting SEC v.
Lawbaugh, 359 F. Supp. 2d 418, 421 (D. Md. 2005)). A defendant’s default must be entered when
the defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). If the plaintiff’s claim against the defaulting defendant is not for a sum
certain or ascertainable through computation, the plaintiff “must apply to the court for a default
judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
2
“The defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s well-pleaded allegations of fact[]” but
“is not held . . . to admit conclusions of law.” Ryan v. Homecomings Fin. Network, 253 F.3d 778,
780 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Nishimatsu Constr. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200,
1206 (5th Cir. 1975)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) (“An allegation—other than one relating to
the amount of damages—s admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not
denied.”); Agora Fin., LLC v. Samler, 725 F. Supp. 2d 491, 494 (D. Md. 2010) (“It . . . remains
for the court to determine whether these unchallenged factual allegations constitute a legitimate
cause of action.”) (citing Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780–81). Therefore, when reviewing a motion for
default judgment, the court accepts as true the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint but must
determine whether those allegations “support the relief sought in this action.” Ryan, 253 F.3d at
780.
“If the court finds that liability is established, it must then turn to the determination of
damages.” Int’l Painters & Allied Trades Indus. Pension Fund v. Cap. Restoration & Painting
Co., 919 F. Supp. 2d 680, 684 (D. Md. 2013) (citing Ryan, 253 F.3d at 780–81.) “The court must
make an independent determination regarding damages and cannot accept as true factual
allegations of damages.” Id. “An allegation ‘relating to the amount of damages’ is not deemed
admitted based on a defendant’s failure to deny in a required responsive pleading.” Monge, 751 F.
Supp. 2d at 794 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6). The court may but need not conduct a hearing to
determine the amount of damages; it may instead “rely on detailed affidavits or documentary
evidence to determine the appropriate sum.” Adkins v. Teseo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 15, 17 (D.D.C. 2001)
(citing United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854, 857 (5th Cir. 1979)), quoted in United Food
& Com. Workers Unions v. Magruder Holdings, Inc., Civ. No. GJH-16-2903, 2017 WL 3129192,
3
at *3 (D. Md. July 21, 2017). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(c), “[a] default judgment must not
differ in kind from, or exceed in amount, what is demanded in the pleadings.”
B. Analysis
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the TCPA, specifically, 47
U.S.C. § 227(c).
Under the TCPA, the Federal Communications Commission
(“FCC”) is directed to engage in rulemaking about “the need to
protect residential telephone subscribers’ private rights to avoid
receiving telephone solicitations to which they object” and to
“prescribe regulations to implement methods and procedures for
protecting [those] privacy rights.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(1), (2). “A
person who has received more than one telephone call within any
12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of
the regulations” prescribed by the FCC has a private right of action
for damages and injunctive relief. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).
Cleveland v. Nextmarvel, Inc., Civ. No. TDC-23-1918, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9679, at *5 (D.
Md. Jan. 18, 2024).
A TCPA regulation cited in the Complaint prohibits “any telephone solicitation to . . . [a]
residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national
do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained
by the Federal Government.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). A “telephone solicitation” is defined in
the TCPA as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the
purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services, which is transmitted to any
person,” with certain exceptions not relevant here. 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4).
Another regulation cited in the Complaint prohibits a person or entity from initiating calls
“for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has
instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive such calls made
by or on behalf of that person or entity.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). The person’s or entity’s personnel
4
“must be informed and trained in the existence and use of the do-not-call list.” Id. § 64.1200(d)(2).
If a person or entity making . . . any call for telemarketing purposes
(or on whose behalf such a call is made) receives a request from a
residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls from that person
or entity, the person or entity must record the request and place the
subscriber’s name, if provided, and telephone number on the do-notcall list at the time the request is made. Persons or entities making
such calls (or on whose behalf such calls are made) must honor a
residential subscriber’s do-not-call request within a reasonable time
from the date such request is made. This period may not exceed 30
days from the date of such request. If such requests are recorded or
maintained by a party other than the person or entity on whose
behalf the call is made, the person or entity on whose behalf the call
is made will be liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call
request.
Id. § 64.1200(d)(3). “A person or entity making . . . any call for telemarketing purposes must
maintain a record of a consumer’s request not to receive further calls[,]” and must honor a “donot-call request . . . for 5 years from the time the request is made.” Id. § 64.1200(d)(6).
The foregoing regulations “are applicable to any person or entity making telephone
solicitations or telemarketing calls or text messages to wireless telephone numbers to the extent
described in the Commission's Report and Order, . . . “Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.” Id. § 64.1200(e).
Here, Plaintiff’s undisputed factual allegations are sufficient to establish Defendant’s
liability under the TCPA and the foregoing regulations. “To establish a TCPA violation based on
47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), a plaintiff must show: (1) more than one telephone call within any 12month period; (2) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in,
property, goods, or services; (3) by or on behalf of the same entity; (4) to a residential telephone
subscriber whose telephone number had been placed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.”
Cleveland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9679, at *7 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)). Here, Plaintiff
alleges in the Complaint that Defendant placed at least fifteen telemarketing calls to his cell phone
5
number between September 28, 2023, and October 25, 2023. 1 ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 36–43. Each call
solicited Plaintiff to purchase adjustable beds and mattresses marketed by Defendant. Id. ¶ 37.
Finally, Plaintiff's cell phone number has been listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since
2004, id. ¶ 35, and Plaintiff did not provide prior express invitation or consent to receive
Defendant’s calls, id. ¶ 45. Together, these unchallenged factual allegations establish a violation
of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).
“To prove a TCPA violation based on 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), a plaintiff must establish:
(1) more than one telephone call within any 12-month period; (2) for the purpose of encouraging
the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services; (3) by or on behalf of the
same entity; (4) that fails to honor the recipient’s prior do-not-call request; (5) within a reasonable
time after the date such request was made.” Cleveland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9679, at *8 (citing
47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that, during Defendant’s first telemarketing call on
September 28, 2023, Plaintiff stated “he was not interested and instructed the caller not to call
back.” ECF No. 1, ¶ 41. Thereafter, Defendant proceeded to place numerous additional
telemarketing calls over the next several weeks. Id. ¶¶ 37, 43. Again, each call solicited Plaintiff
to purchase adjustable beds and mattresses marketed by Defendant. Id. ¶ 37. These facts, taken
together and unchallenged by Defendant, demonstrate a violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3).
Having found Defendant liable for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. §
64.1200, the Court proceeds to a computation of damages. The statute provides that a plaintiff may
recover “actual monetary loss” from such violations or “receive up to $500 in damages for each
such violation, whichever is greater[.]” 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B). Additionally, “[i]f the court finds
that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the regulations prescribed under this subsection,
1
Plaintiff elaborates in a declaration attached to his motion that he actually received 55 telemarketing
calls from Defendant between September 28, 2023, and December 21, 2023. ECF No. 12-2, ¶ 13.
6
the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more
than 3 times the amount available under [§ 227(c)(5)(B)].” Id. § 227(c)(5).
Plaintiff alleges willful violations of the TCPA and seeks treble damages. See ECF No. 1,
¶¶ 49, 50, 79; ECF No. 12-1 at 6–7. “For purposes of civil liability, a defendant acts willfully under
the TCPA when it ‘demonstrate[s] indifference to ongoing violations and a conscious disregard
for compliance with the law.’” Cleveland, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9679, at *9 (quoting Krakauer
v. Dish Network LLC, 925 F.3d 643, 662 (4th Cir. 2019)). Here, Plaintiff has not merely alleged
that Defendant acted knowingly and willfully; he alleges specific facts to support a finding of
willfulness. Plaintiff alleges that, prior to receiving Defendant’s telemarketing calls, Defendant
had received “numerous consumer complaints about its unsolicited and harassing calling
practices[.]” ECF No. 1, ¶ 50. Several of these complaints, lodged with the Better Business Bureau,
are reproduced in the Complaint. See id. Furthermore, whenever he received an unwanted
telemarketing call, Plaintiff “repeatedly instructed the callers to stop calling him.” Id. ¶ 44. These
facts are sufficient to demonstrate Defendant’s “indifference to ongoing violations and a conscious
disregard for compliance with the law.” Krakauer, 925 F.3d at 662. Accordingly, Plaintiff has
established willful violations of the TCPA and justified an award of treble damages under 47
U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(C).
The declaration attached to Plaintiff’s motion establishes Defendant’s liability for 54
unsolicited telemarketing calls to Plaintiff in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. §
64.1200. Applying treble damages for each willful violation results in a total amount of $81,500.
The Court shall award this amount accordingly.
7
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is GRANTED.
Judgment shall be entered in a total amount of $81,500. A separate Order will issue.
1/28/25
Date
/S/
Matthew J. Maddox
United States District Judge
8
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?