Hall v. Columbia Collection Service, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER: The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acostas Findings and Recommendation 33 , GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion 25 for Sanctions and AWARDS to Plaintiff attorneys fees in the amount of $1,267.50, ENTERS the Judgment proposed by Plaintiff, and DISMISSES this action with prejudice. Signed on 09/29/2014 by Judge Anna J. Brown. See attached 6 page Order for full text. (bb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

JOSHUA HALL,
Plaintiff,

3:14-CV-00006-AC
ORDER

v.
COLUMBIA COLLECTION SERVICE,
INC., and DAVID SCHUMACHER,
Defendants.
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and
Recommendation (F&R) (#33) on July 14, 2014, in which he
recommends the Court grant Plaintiff Joshua Hall’s Motion (#25)
for Sanctions Against Defendant Columbia Collection Service,
Inc.,1 and enter Plaintiff’s proposed judgment as to Defendant
Columbia Collection Service, Inc., which is attached to the
June 23, 2014, Declaration (#24) of Michael Fuller.
1

Defendant

On May 30, 2014, Magistrate Judge Acosta entered a
Stipulated Partial Judgment (#20) dismissing Plaintiff’s claims
against Defendant David Schumacher with prejudice without fees or
costs to any party.
1 - ORDER

Columbia Collection Service, Inc., filed timely Objections (#35)
to the F&R.

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate
Judge's F&R, the district court must make a de novo determination
of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report.
§ 636(b)(1).

28 U.S.C.

See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932

(9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,
1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).
I.

Sanctions
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiff’s Motion

for Sanctions and awarding to Plaintiff attorneys’ fees of
$1,267.50 incurred in compelling Defendant to perform under the
terms of the Offer of Judgment and Rule 68 for the period between
the time the parties agreed to the settlement amount on June 3,
2014, and the date that Defendant paid those amounts on
June 11, 2014.

Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation that this Court impose sanctions.

In its

Objections, however, Defendant merely reiterates the arguments in
its Response (#27) in Opposition to Motion for Imposition of
Sanctions.
This Court has carefully considered Defendant’s Objections
to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that this Court impose

2 - ORDER

sanctions against Defendant and concludes Defendant’s Objections
do not provide a basis to modify the F&R.
II.

Proposed Judgment
The Magistrate Judge recommends this Court enter Plaintiff’s

proposed judgment.

Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation.
After Plaintiff accepted Defendant’s Offer of Judgment on
April 17, 2014, Plaintiff submitted a proposed judgment that
stated Plaintiff dismisses the action with prejudice and provided
in part:

“Columbia Collection Service, Inc. shall pay Joshua

Hall $2,500 compensatory damages and $8,355.45 attorney fees and
costs.”

Defendant, however, objected to Plaintiff’s

April 17, 2014, proposed judgment.

At the request of the parties

and to resolve the issue of the proper form of judgment, the
Magistrate Judge set a telephone status conference for
June 13, 2014.

On June 11, 2014, Defendant complied with the

accepted Offer of Judgment and paid to Plaintiff $2,500
compensatory damages and $8,355.45 attorneys’ fees and costs.

At

the status conference on June 13, 2014, the Magistrate Judge
directed the parties to file simultaneous briefs as to the
appropriate form of judgment.

In its Brief (#23) in Opposition

to Entry of a Money Judgment, Defendant argued the Court did not
have the authority to enter a money judgment and instead must

3 - ORDER

enter only a judgment dismissing the case because Defendant’s
satisfaction of the Offer of Judgment eliminated any case or
controversy before the Court and mooted any dispute between the
parties.

Plaintiff, in turn, submitted a revised proposed

judgment that dismisses this action with prejudice and provides:
“Columbia Collection Service, Inc. has satisfied its obligation
pursuant to the offer of judgment in full by tendering payment to
[Plaintiff] Joshua Hall of $2,500 compensatory damages and
$8,355.45 attorneys’ fees and costs.”

Decl. Michael Fuller, Ex.

C (Pl.’s Proposed J.) at 2 (emphasis added).
Defendant contends in its Objections that the Offer of
Judgment (#15) rather than the Complaint is now the operative
document in this case; that this action became moot on June 11,
2014, when Defendant satisfied the Offer of Judgment in its
entirety; that the Court does not have the authority to enter a
money judgment against Defendant; and that the Court must,
therefore, enter only a judgment of dismissal.

Although

Defendant objects to the general form of judgment proposed by
Plaintiff and recommended by the Magistrate Judge, Defendant does
not elaborate on the underlying reasons for its Objections nor
provide any new authorities that support its Objections.
In the F&R the Magistrate Judge finds all of Plaintiff’s
claims were not mooted when Defendant tendered the amounts agreed

4 - ORDER

to in the Offer of Judgment because those amounts did not satisfy
all remedies sought by Plaintiff in his Complaint.

See Knox v.

Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 2287 (2012)(“A case
becomes moot only when it is impossible for a court to grant any
effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.”).

The

Magistrate Judge, therefore, recommends this Court enter
Plaintiff’s revised proposed judgment.
In any event, in his proposed judgment Plaintiff dismisses
“this action . . . with prejudice as to Defendant Columbia
Collection Service, Inc.”

Pl.’s Proposed J. at 2.

On this

record, therefore, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation that Plaintiff’s proposed form of judgment should
enter.
This Court has carefully considered Defendant’s remaining
Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify
the F&R.

This Court has also reviewed the pertinent portions of

the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate
Judge’s F&R.

CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta’s Findings and
Recommendation (#33), GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (#25) for
Sanctions and AWARDS to Plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount

5 - ORDER

of $1,267.50, ENTERS the Judgment proposed by Plaintiff, and
DISMISSES this action with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 29th day of September, 2014.
/s/ Anna J. Brown
ANNA J. BROWN
United States District Judge

6 - ORDER