Green v. Everest Asset Management, LLC

Filing 10

ORDER granting 9 Motion for Default Judgment as set out in the order. A judgment will be entered in a separate docket entry to follow. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III on May 29, 2015. (SP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
GERALD GREEN

PLAINTIFF

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14cv293-DPJ-FKB

EVEREST ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC

DEFENDANT

ORDER
This consumer-protection case is before the Court on Plaintiff Gerald Green’s Motion for
Default Judgment [9]. Having reviewed Green’s submissions and the docket of this case, the
Court finds that the motion should be granted.
I.

Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Gerald Green alleges that for a period from June to November 2013, he received

numerous calls on his cellular phone from an automatic-telephone-dialing system owned by
Defendant Everest Asset Management, LLC. Despite Green asking Everest to cease calling him,
the calls continued.
Green filed this action on April 8, 2014, asserting violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. Compl. [1]. Green served the Complaint on Everest on
May 16, 2014. Aff. [5]. Everest failed to respond or otherwise appear, and, on Green’s motion,
the Clerk of Court entered default [7] against Everest on July 30, 2014. Green thereafter moved
for default judgment [9] on his TCPA claim. The Court is prepared to rule.

II.

Analysis
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(b)(E), Green submitted a proposed order analyzing his claims in

this case and granting his motion for default judgment. In his motion and the proposed order,
Green no longer seeks damages and attorney’s fees under the FDCPA. Taking the well-pleaded
factual allegations as true, as it must in light of Everest’s default, the Court concludes that Green
has alleged violations of the TCPA. Cf. Meyer v. Bayles, 559 F. App’x 312, 313 (5th Cir. 2013)
(per curiam). Based on the Complaint and Green’s affidavit submitted in support, the Court
concludes that Green is entitled to statutory damages in the amount of $70,500. Because the
Court concludes that the damages in this action are “capable of mathematical calculation,” a
hearing on damages is unnecessary. See James v. Frame, 6 F.3d 307, 310 (5th Cir. 1993).
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Green’s Motion for Default Judgment [9] is granted. A

separate final judgment will be entered in this action in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 29th day of May, 2015.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2