Barnett v. Creditors Specialty Service, Inc.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 07/01/2013. (thh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00303-MR-DLH
CREDITORS SPECIALTY SERVICE, INC., )
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte.
On September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff initiated this action alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1692, et
seq. (FDCPA), the North Carolina Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, N.C.
Gen. Stat. §58-70, et seq., the North Carolina Fair Debt Collection Act,
N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-50, et seq., and asserting a claim for invasion of
privacy. [Doc. 1]. On October 24, 2012, the Plaintiff filed proof of service
on the Defendant. [Doc. 4]. Based on the information therein, an answer
was due to be filed on or before November 5, 2012.
Defendant did not answer or otherwise respond but the Plaintiff did not
move for entry of default. On November 13, 2012, this Court by text Order
required the Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed
for failure to prosecute. As a result of that Order, the Plaintiff moved for
entry of default on November 28, 2012. [Doc. 5]. The Clerk of Court
entered default on December 14, 2012. [Doc. 6].
Thereafter, the Plaintiff did not move for default judgment.
result, on January 23, 2013, this Court for a second time required the
Plaintiff to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. [Doc. 7]. In response to that Order, on February 7, 2013, the
Plaintiff moved for the entry of default judgment. [Doc. 9].
While the Complaint contains four counts, the Plaintiff’s motion for
default judgment seeks the entry of judgment only as to his claims under
the FDCPA and the North Carolina Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The
Court entered an Order on April 16, 2013 granting default judgment for the
Plaintiff with respect to these claims and awarding the Plaintiff statutory
damages. [Doc. 10]. Additionally, the Court granted the Plaintiff’s request
for an award of costs under the FDCPA. [Id.]. The Court, however, denied
without prejudice the Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees, finding that the
request was insufficiently supported. [Id.]. The Court further ordered that a
final judgment would be entered upon a final determination of attorney’s
To date, more than 60 days have passed since the Court’s Order,
and the Plaintiff has not renewed his request for an award of attorney’s
fees. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk to enter a Final Judgment
in this case in accordance with the Court’s Order of April 16, 2013.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff has taken no action with respect to his claim
under the North Carolina Fair Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-50,
et seq., or his claim for invasion of privacy; accordingly, these claims are
hereby deemed abandoned and will be dismissed due to the Plaintiff’s
failure to prosecute.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s claim under the
North Carolina Fair Debt Collection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §75-50, et seq.,
and his claim for invasion of privacy are hereby DISMISSED for failure to
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall enter a
Judgment in this case in accordance with the Court’s Order of April 16,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
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?