GARCIA

v.

CLIENT RESOLUTION MANAGEMENT, LLC

(“Defendant”) on February 20, 2020, ECF No. , and service of the summons and Complaint was executed on Defendant on March 19, 2020, setting a response deadline of April 9, 2020, ECF No. . After Defendant failed to timely answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint, the Clerk of Court entered Default, ECF No. , and the instant Motion followed. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice. If a defendant fails to plead or otherwise defend a complaint filed against it, the Clerk of Court may enter a default against that party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Once a default is entered, a plaintiff may seek entry of a default judgment against the defaulting defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). This Circuit maintains a “strong policy of determining cases on their merits and [] therefore view[s] defaults with disfavor.” In re Worldwide Web Sys., Inc., 328 F. 3d 1291, 1295 (11th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, default judgment is entirely appropriate and within the district court’s sound discretion to render where the defendant has failed to defend or otherwise engage in the proceedings. See, e.g., Tara Prods., Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets, Inc., 449 F. App’x 908, 910 (11th Cir. 2011); Dawkins v. Glover, 308 F. App’x 394, 395 (11th Cir. 2009); In re Knight, 833 F. 2d 1515, 1516 (11th Cir. 1987); Wahl v. McIver, 773 F. 2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985). By defaulting, a defendant is taken to admit the well-pleaded allegations of fact in a plaintiff’s complaint. Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC v. SRG Consulting, Inc., 561 F. 3d 1298, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Nishimatsu Const. Co., Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F. 2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. 1975)).¹ A defendant’s “failure to appear and the Clerk’s subsequent entry of default against him do[es] not automatically entitle Plaintiff to a default judgment.” Capitol Records v. Carmichael, 508 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1083 (S.D. Ala. 2007). Indeed, a default is not “an absolute confession by the defendant of his liability and of the plaintiff’s right to recover,” Pitts ex rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1357 (S.D. Ga. 2004), but instead acts as an admission by the defaulted defendant as to the well-pleaded allegations of fact in the complaint. See Eagle Hosp. Physicians, LLC, 561 F. 3d at 1307 (“A defendant, by his default, admits the plaintiff’s wellpleaded allegations of fact, is concluded on those facts by the judgment, and is barred from contesting on appeal the facts thus established.” (citations omitted)); GMAC Commercial Mortg. Corp. v. Maitland Hotel Assocs., Ltd., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1359 (M.D. Fla. 2002) (default judgment is appropriate only if court finds sufficient basis in pleadings for judgment to be entered, and that complaint states a claim). Stated differently, “a default judgment cannot stand on a

Even when a default has been entered, Plaintiff must establish proper grounds for a default judgment by showing that the Complaint adequately establishes subject matter jurisdiction over this action and sufficiently states a claim for relief against Defendant[] as to each count for which a default judgment is sought. Only after Plaintiff has made this showing will the Court address the issues of damages and attorney’s fees and costs.

Id. documentation of damages should be authenticated and submitted with any future motion for default judgment.” (citations omitted)). “Thus, when seeking a default judgment, a plaintiff should provide the Court with points and authorities containing citations to authority showing that the Plaintiff’s claim or claims include allegations of all the necessary elements required for entitlement to relief.” Johnson v. Cate, No. 1:09-cv-00502-OWW-SMS, 2009 WL 2151370, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2009). Likewise, “it is the Plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate, in a motion for default judgment, that its pleading’s factual allegations are legally sufficient to establish one or more of its claims and to entitle it to the specific relief requested.” United States v. IPS Orlando, LLC, No. 6:16-cv-2196-Orl-18GJK, 2017 WL 9834351, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2017). Plaintiff’s Motion fails to meet this burden, and this inadequacy is reason enough to deny the requested relief. Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the Motion below. Plaintiff’s two-count Complaint alleges that Defendant engaged in conduct in violation of numerous provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq.,³ and of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (“FCCPA”), Fla. Stat. § 559.55, et

3428157 (M.D. Fla. July 16, 2018). “In the instant case, the nature and extent of Defendant’s actions warrant the maximum award of statutory damages.” Smith v. Royal Oak Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 3:11-cv-543-J-34JRK, 2012 WL 3290153, at *5 (M.D. Fla. June 18, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:11-cv- 543-J-34JRK, 2012 WL 3290151 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2012); see also Sandler v. Michael Maxwell Grp., LLC, No. 6:19-cv-1688-Orl-41GJK, 2019 WL 7461690, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2019) (recommending maximum statutory damages where “Plaintiff has established multiple violations of the FDCPA and the FCCPA”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:19-cv-1688-Orl- 41GJK, 2020 WL 42867 (M.D. Fla. Jan.³, 2020); Beltran v. First US Capital, LLC, No. 8:17-cv-

1722-T-33AAS, 2017 WL 5889755, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 29, 2017) (concluding that the numerous violations of the FDCPA warranted an award for the maximum amount of statutory damages); Selby v. Christian Nicholas & Assocs., Inc., No. 3:09-cv-121-J-34JRK, 2010 WL 745748, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2010) (awarding $1000 in statutory damages based on the defendant’s repeated improper actions in violation of the FDCPA). Further, “by failing to respond to the instant Motion, Defendant declined the opportunity to challenge both the grant and the amount of the statutory award.” Figueroa v. Maximum Recovery Sols., Inc., No. 12-60098-CIV, 2012 WL 13134301, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 12, 2012); see also Evans, 2013 WL 12138555, at *1 (“Based on the Complaint’s now admitted factual allegations and the record, the Court finds that Defendant . . . repeatedly and intentionally violated numerous provisions of the FDCPA, and that these violations were egregious. The Court therefore awards [the plaintiff] the full $1,000 in statutory damages.”); Frazier v. Absolute Collection Serv., Inc., 767 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2011) (noting that “Defendant through its default and nonappearance has not provided any basis for concluding that an amount less than the statutory maximum is appropriate”). “Upon review of the well-pleaded allegations in the [] Complaint, with specific consideration given to the frequency, persistence, and nature of the alleged violations,” the Court concludes that Plaintiff should be awarded the full $2,000.00 of statutory damages requested. Smith, 2012 WL 3290153, at *5. Finally, with regard to Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees, the Court finds that the Motion fails to comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7.3(a), requiring the appropriate documentation be filed in support of a request for fees and costs. Thus, this request is denied without prejudice. To the extent that Plaintiff files an amended motion seeking attorneys’ fees, paralegal fees, and costs, such a motion must be verified and must delineate: (1) the identity,

experience, and qualifications for each timekeeper for whom fees are sought; (2) the number of hours reasonably expended by each such timekeeper; (3) an itemized description of the tasks done during those hours; and (4) the hourly rate(s) claimed for each timekeeper. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(a). Plaintiff should also properly describe and document with itemized invoices all incurred and claimed fees and expenses not taxable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.3(a). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Motion, ECF No. , is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58, the Court will separately enter Final Default Judgment. Case No. 20-cv-20713-BLOOM/Louis

3. Within thirty days of the date of entry of this Order, Plaintiff may file an adequately supported amended motion for attorneys’ fees and costs that complies with the Local Rules and includes sworn affidavit(s) specifying the hours worked, time records, the qualifications of each timekeeper and associated billing rates, and the total amount of attorneys’ fees and costs requested. This motion must also include a memorandum of law with citations to relevant legal authority supporting the requested hourly rates, fees, and costs. Any further failure by Plaintiff to comply with the Local Rules will result in the denial of the motion without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 22, 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record Client Resolution Management, LLC 1675 Niagara Street Buffalo, New York 14213