Cunningham v. Account Processing Group LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOURTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

LESLIE CUNNINGHAM, :

:

Plaintiff : Case No. 2:21-cv-0120

:

v. : Chief Judge Algenon L. Marbley

:

ACCOUNT PROCESSING GROUP : Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

LLC, et al., :

:

Defendants :

OPINION & ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Leslie Cunningham’s Motion for Default

Judgment against Defendants Account Processing Group LLC and Cory Carruba. (ECF No. 10).

For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED, a DEFAULT JUDGMENT is

entered against the two named Defendants, and Plaintiff is awarded $15,773.50 in total damages,

costs, and fees.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2015, Plaintiff obtained a payday loan from “Check N’ Go” to purchase household items

and everyday essentials. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 39–40). The account entered default and was sold first to

JTM Capital Management LLC, then to Defendant Account Processing Group LLC (hereinafter,

“APG”). (Id. ¶¶ 41–42). Defendant Carruba, a debt collector by trade, founded APG and controlled

its alleged acts. (Id. ¶¶ 17, 21, 27). Plaintiff alleges that APG engaged in a “campaign of

harassment, intimidation, and extortion” beginning in January of 2020 and lasting through March

2020. (Id. ¶¶ 32, 43–44). Plaintiff states that Defendants made phone calls as many as eight times

a day to Plaintiff and her family members, in which Defendants threatened legal action regarding

the “Check N’ Go” debt and often left harassing and embarrassing messages. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 43–

44; No. 10-1 ¶¶ 2–7). Plaintiff filed suit on January 11, 2021, alleging violations of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692; and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices

Act (“OCSPA”), O.R.C. § 1345.02(A). (ECF No. 1 ¶ 1).

Service was perfected on Defendants APG and Carruba on March 10 and 20, 2021,

respectively. (ECF Nos. 4 & 5). Each failed to answer by their responsive pleading deadlines of

March 31 and April 12, 2021. Plaintiff applied for an entry of default against Defendant APG on

June 1, 2021, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(a). (ECF No. 6). The Clerk entered

APG’s default the next day. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff then applied for an entry of default against

Defendant Carruba on June 22, 2021, which the Clerk entered three days later. (ECF Nos. 8 & 9).

Defendants since have failed to appear and have not moved to set aside the defaults. Plaintiff filed

a Motion for Default Judgment on August 16, 2021, seeking to hold Defendants APG and Carruba

jointly and severally liable for $15,773.50 in damages, costs, and fees. (ECF No. 10).

II. DEFAULT JUDGMENT

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 governs defaults and default judgments. The first step

is entry of default. “When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has

failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk

must enter the party’s default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Once default is entered, a party may take the

second step by moving for default judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). At that stage,  “the complaint’s

factual allegations regarding liability are taken as true, while allegations regarding the amount of

damages must be proven.” Arthur v. Robert James & Assocs. Asset Mgmt., Inc., 2012 WL

1122892, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 3, 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“An entry of default does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a default judgment.”

Methe v. Amazon.com.dedc, LLC, 2019 WL 3082329, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 15, 2019). “The

plaintiff must still show that, when all of the factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true,

the defendant is liable for the claim(s) asserted.” Id.; see also F.C. Franchising Sys., Inc. v.

Schweizer, 2012 WL 1945068 at *3 (S.D. Ohio May 30, 2012) (“‘[I]t remains for the district court

to consider whether the unchallenged facts constitute a cause of action, since a party in default

does not admit mere conclusions of law.’” (quoting Marshall v. Baggett, 616 F.3d 849, 852 (8th

Cir. 2010))).

When considering whether to enter default judgment, the Sixth Circuit instructs courts to

consider the following factors:

(1) possible prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of the claims; (3) the sufficiency

of the complaint; (4) the amount of money at stake; (5) possible disputed material

facts; (6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect; and (7) the preference

for decisions on the merits.

Russell v. City of Farmington Hills, 34 F. App’x 196, 198 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Eitel v. McCool,

782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir. 1986); Berthelsen v. Kane, 907 F.2d 617, 620 (6th Cir. 1990); and

Shepard Claims Serv., Inc. v. William Darrah & Assocs., 796 F.2d 190, 193–94 (6th Cir. 1986)).

The Court will address these factors in turn, beginning with the sufficiency of the Complaint and

the merits of the claims.

A. Sufficient and Meritorious Claims

1. Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Count One)

In Count One of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of the FDCPA in nine separate

ways. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 57). To show a violation of the FDCPA under 15 U.S.C. § 1692, a plaintiff

must satisfy the following elements:

(1) [the plaintiff] is a consumer as defined by the FDCPA, (2) the debt arose out of

transactions which are primarily for personal, family or household purposes, (3) the

defendant is a debt collector as defined by the FDCPA, and (4) the defendant

violated the prohibitions set forth in § 1692e.

Bauman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 808 F.3d 1097, 1100 (6th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “The FDCPA is a strict-liability statute: A plaintiff does not need to prove knowledge or

intent, and does not need to have suffered actual damages.” Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs.,

LLC, 770 F.3d 443, 448–49 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal citations omitted).

Taking the facts stated in the Complaint as true, the Court finds Defendants are liable for

violations of the FDCPA. First, Plaintiff alleges that she is a consumer, as the Complaint states she

is a “natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3); see

ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 15, 39, 54. Second, Plaintiff alleges that the debt arose out of primarily personal

transactions, specifically “to purchase household items . . . and basic necessities.” (Id. ¶ 40). Third,

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are debt collectors, as they “use[] any instrumentality of interstate

commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any

debts, or [they] regularly collect[] or attempt[] to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due

or asserted to be owed or due to another.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); see ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 16–17, 43, 55–

56.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges conduct violative of the FDCPA in nine separate ways. (ECF No.

1 ¶ 57). Allegations (c) through (h) in Paragraph 57 are violative of § 1692e, which focuses on

false or misleading representations. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants lied about their

occupation, place of business, and business name; made false threats of litigation; falsely implied

Plaintiff had committed a crime; and failed to give the so-called “mini-Miranda” warning. (Id. ¶¶

44–52, 57c–h). Additionally, allegation (a) is violative of § 1692b and c, which concern

communications with persons other than the consumer. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants left

inappropriate messages with the mother of her boyfriend’s children for the purpose of obtaining

Plaintiff’s location information. (Id. ¶¶ 44, 57a). Allegation (b) is violative of § 1692d, which

concerns harassment and abuse. Specifically, Defendants “attempt[ed] to dissuade her from

obtaining legal representation while at the same time threatening her with civil suits and criminal

prosecution.” (Id. ¶ 57b). Lastly, allegation (i) is violative of § 1692g(a), which requires a notice

of debt collection. Plaintiff never received such a notice after Defendants initiated their collection

efforts. (Id. ¶¶ 52, 57i).

Reviewing Plaintiff’s allegations in Count One, the Complaint sets out sufficient facts that,

taken as true, state a sufficient and meritorious claim that is likely to succeed. Thus, factor one

weighs in favor of default judgment on the FDCPA claim.

2. Violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act (Count Two)

In Count Two of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged violations of the OCSPA. That statute

provides:

No supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or practice in connection with

a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act or practice by a supplier

violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.

O.R.C. § 1345.02(A).

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are suppliers, as they are “engaged in the business of

soliciting consumer transactions.” O.R.C. § 1345.01(C); see ECF No. 1 ¶ 65 (citing Taylor v. First

Resolution Inv. Corp., 72 N.E.3d 573, 599–600 (Ohio 2016) (holding debt collector to be a

“supplier” within meaning of OCSPA)). Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants engaged in unfair

and deceptive acts connected with the debt collection transactions: throughout the Complaint,

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants lied about their place of business, falsely threatened Plaintiff with

litigation knowing that no complaints had been filed, and called Plaintiff’s family and

acquaintances under those false pretenses, among other conduct. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 44–52). See also

id. ¶ 69 (citing Kelly v. Montgomery Lynch & Assocs., Inc., 2008 WL 1775251, at *11 (N.D. Ohio

Apr. 15, 2008) (“[A]ny violation of any one of the enumerated sections of the FDCPA is

necessarily an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of [O.]R.C. § 1345.02 and/or

§ 1345.03”)).

Again, taking all the facts in Plaintiff’s Complaint as true, the allegations in Count Two

are sufficient to state a meritorious claim. This weighs in favor of default judgment on the OCSPA

claim also.

B. Prejudice to Plaintiff

Having found Plaintiff’s claims sufficient and meritorious, the Court must examine the

remaining default judgment factors listed in Russell. The next to consider is possible prejudice to

Plaintiff if default judgment is not granted. Plaintiff claims she will be prejudiced if her Motion is

denied, as “Defendants are unlikely to appear or defend this suit,” and Plaintiff “will not be able

to enforce her rights.” (ECF No. 10 at 6). The Court concurs. The alleged “campaign of

harassment” occurred over two years ago (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 32, 43), and still Plaintiff remains without

relief. To deny default judgment, over a year after this case was initiated, would mean Plaintiff’s

efforts at a civil resolution were futile. Moreover, were she to file another lawsuit, all indications

are that she would return to this stage: default judgment. Courts find the prejudice factor to be

satisfied under such circumstances. See, e.g., Toler v. Glob. Coll. of Nat. Med., Inc., 2016 WL

67529, at *7 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2016). Accordingly, the prejudice factor weighs in favor of default

judgment.

C. Amount of Money at Stake

Next, the Court considers the amount of money at stake. Plaintiff alleges damages, costs,

and fees totaling $15,773.50. (ECF 10 at 1). This total is on the lower end of the spectrum for

typical federal cases. Notably, when this Court sits in diversity jurisdiction, the amount in

controversy must exceed $75,000—nearly five times the requested relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

As measured against other cases, the amount of money at stake in this matter is much less

substantial. Other courts are in accord. See, e.g., Johnson v. Lo, 2021 WL 5236552, at *3 (N.D.

Cal. Oct. 21, 2021) (total of $14,921.00 “is not substantial”); Schenker, Inc. v. Predator

Mogulwear, Inc., 2007 WL 4556915, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2007) ($75,883.13 “is not

substantial” and “pales in comparison” to amounts in other cases). This factor weighs in favor of

default judgment.

D. Possible Disputed Material Facts

As for the possibility of disputed material facts, Defendants have given the Court little to

evaluate; they have not participated in this case in any capacity aside from limited e-mail

communications attached to Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 10-3). Plaintiff states in her Motion that

Defendants “attempted to dispute the underlying facts” through those e-mails, “claiming that they

had sold the debt in question prior to the conduct at issue in this case.” (ECF No. 10 at 8). Yet,

when Plaintiff’s counsel “caught [them] in a lie,” the e-mail thread went silent. (Id.). That silence

continued through the responsive pleading deadline, at which point Defendants “forfeited their

right to dispute any of Plaintiff’s allegations by not answering the Complaint.” Tomlinson v. E.

Recovery & Remediation Grp., LLC, 2019 WL 1380313, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2019). Given

the fact that Defendants have yet to appear or respond to Plaintiff’s subsequent e-mails, it seems

unlikely that Defendants would dispute the factual allegations even if provided the opportunity.

Thus, this factor weighs in favor of default judgment.

E. Default Due to Excusable Neglect

Excusable neglect did not play a role in Defendants’ default in this case. Both Defendants

were served properly, obtained legal counsel who corresponded briefly with Plaintiff’s attorney,

and were made aware of both the entry of default and Plaintiff’s intent to file a Motion for Default

Judgment. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 10-3). Nevertheless, Defendants have failed to appear or otherwise

defend over the past year. Defense counsel even admitted that service was proper on Defendant

APG but still ignored the responsive pleading deadline. (Id. at 3). All these facts are indicative of

actual disregard, rather than excusable neglect. As such, this factor favors default judgment.

F. Preference for Decisions on the Merits

Finally, the Court must consider “the strong policy underlying the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.” Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472. Inevitably, this factor is in

tension with default judgment. Where trial on the merits is not attainable, however, courts

recognize that this policy preference must yield to the needs of litigants actually before them. See,

e.g., Toler, 2016 WL 67529, at *9 (“[W]hile public policy favors resolution of cases on the merits,

Defendants and their Counsel have consistently ignored opportunities for a merits-based resolution

by refusing to respond in this matter . . . . ‘Effective judicial administration requires that at some

point disputes be treated as finally and definitively resolved.’” (quoting 10A Charles A. Wright &

Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2693 (3d ed.))). Since all other factors weigh

decisively in favor of default judgment, and since a decision on the merits is neither realistic nor

attainable in this case, policy preferences will not preclude default judgment. Plaintiff’s Motion

for Default Judgment (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.

III. DAMAGES

Having found default judgment proper, the Court next must determine the appropriate

measure of damages. “Where damages are unliquidated a default admits only defendant’s liability

and the amount of damages must be proved.” Antoine v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 66 F.3d 105, 110 (6th

Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rule 55(b)(2) permits the Court to conduct an

evidentiary hearing to determine damages, but it does not require one. See also Vesligaj v.

Peterson, 331 F. App’x 351, 354–55 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Fustok v. ContiCommodity Servs.,

Inc., 873 F.2d 38, 40 (2d Cir. 1989)). In some cases, courts forego the evidentiary hearing and find

“affidavits or declarations submitted in support of the motion for default judgment to be

sufficient.” Scott v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 2020 WL 1672659, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 6, 2020).

Plaintiff urges this latter approach and asks the Court to enter a judgment for $15,773.50 in total

damages, costs, and fees. (ECF No. 10 at 6, 16).

“Numerous courts have awarded damages for emotional distress caused by violations of

the FDCPA without a hearing, based on the statements contained in the plaintiff’s affidavit.”

McIntosh v. Check Resolution Serv., Inc., 2011 WL 1595150, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 27, 2011)

(collecting cases). “Where, as here, the plaintiff’s own testimony is [her] only evidence of

emotional damages, [s]he must explain the circumstances of [her] injury in reasonable detail and

not rely on conclusory statements, unless the facts underlying the case are so inherently degrading

that it would be reasonable to infer that a person would suffer emotional distress from the

defendant’s action.” Harding v. Check Processing, LLC, 2011 WL 1097642, at *2 (N.D. Ohio

Mar. 22, 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiff has submitted a signed

declaration with her Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 10-1). The declaration is consistent

with the Complaint and describes her damages in reasonable detail. Accordingly, the Court has

sufficient information to evaluate Plaintiff’s claim for damages, and no hearing is necessary.

A. Statutory Damages

Plaintiff requests $1,000.00 in statutory damages under the FDCPA (ECF No. 10 at 9),

which is the statutory maximum. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(2)(A). When determining what statutory

damages to award, a court should consider “the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by

the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to which such noncompliance

was intentional.” Id. § 1692k(b)(1). On the Court’s review, Plaintiff’s request should be granted,

as the uncontested allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint establish that Defendants have engaged in

several purposeful violations of the FDCPA. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 43 (describing “a campaign of

harassment, intimidation, and extortion”). Under such circumstances, a maximum statutory award

is appropriate. See, e.g., Harding, 2011 WL 1097642, at *3 (finding “several purposeful violations

of [the] FDCPA” warranted “the full $1,000.00 in statutory damages”).

Plaintiff also requests $600.00 in statutory damages under the OCSPA. (ECF No. 10 at 15).

If a supplier commits a deceptive act after an Ohio state court already has concluded that the act

violates O.R.C. § 1345.02, a consumer may recover three times its “actual economic damages or

two hundred dollars, whichever is greater.” O.R.C. § 1345.09(B). Multiple violations causing

“‘separate and distinct harm’” can support multiple statutory awards. Gilden v. Platinum Holdings

Grp., LLC, 2019 WL 590745, at *3 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 13, 2019) (quoting Charvat v. NMP, LLC,

656 F.3d 440, 452 (6th Cir. 2011), and awarding $600.00 for three OCSPA violations). Based

upon the uncontested allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendants have committed at least

three distinct acts which are “unfair or deceptive” under established Ohio law. Defendants falsely

threatened to bring lawsuits against Plaintiff, falsely held themselves out as attorneys, and invaded

Plaintiff’s privacy by contacting persons associated with her regarding the debt. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶

57a, c, d). As discussed supra, each of these acts violated the FDCPA and thus were unfair or

deceptive under Ohio law as well. See Kelly, 2008 WL 1775251, at *11. As such, Plaintiff’s

requested statutory award of $600.00 under the OCSPA is appropriate.

B. Actual Noneconomic Damages

The FDCPA allows a consumer to recover “any actual damage sustained” as a result of a

debt collector’s failure to comply with the FDCPA. 15 U.S.C. 1692k(a)(1). Actual damages “may

include compensatory damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and embarrassment.” Dowling

v. Litton Loan Servicing, LP, 2006 WL 3498292, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 1, 2006).

Here, Plaintiff seeks $10,000.00 in actual damages (ECF No. 10 at 10) and has submitted

a signed declaration setting forth the basis for her claim. (ECF No. 10-1). Plaintiff’s actual damages

consist of two parts: (1) a $5,000.00 claim for invasion of privacy; and (2) a $5,000.00 claim for

other emotional distress. (ECF No. 10 at 10–11). The Court will address these in turn.

Regarding invasion of privacy, Plaintiff casts Defendants’ conduct in communicating her

financial situation with others as “inherently degrading.” (ECF No. 10 at 10). It now is conclusively

established that Defendants “called the mother of Plaintiff’s boyfriend’s children” and left a

message threatening Plaintiff with litigation. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 44, 57a; No. 10-1 ¶ 6). Under similar

circumstances, where debt collectors had shared financial information with the debtor’s relatives

and acquaintances, another court in this Circuit awarded damages in the same requested amount.

See Spurlock v. Deshane Holdings, 2020 WL 12968538, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2020)

(awarding $5,000.00 for the “humiliation, embarrassment, and anxiety” from having a creditor

share private financial details with plaintiff’s fiancé). On review, the Court finds Plaintiff’s request

for $5,000.00 in actual damages resulting from the Defendant’s third-party contacts to be

supported and appropriate.

Second, the Court turns to Plaintiff’s claim for emotional distress damages resulting from

the direct threats lodged by Defendants. Plaintiff declares that “at some points during the

harassment period, the debt collectors would threaten lawsuits, further phone calls, and to expose

[her] personal information.” (ECF No. 10-1 ¶ 7). As a result, she experienced “stress, anxiety,

nausea, humiliation, embarrassment, depression, annoyance, aggravation, frustration, difficulty

focusing at work, and worry.” (Id. ¶ 8). Further elaborating, Plaintiff declares that she was a

“nervous wreck,” that her previously-diagnosed severe depression was exacerbated, that the stress

caused her “increased migraines at a minimum of four times per week,” and that she “experienced

emotional distress every day” for months. (Id. ¶¶ 9–12). The Court finds an award of $5,000.00 to

be appropriate and supported by the evidence submitted. Cf. Blevins v. MSV Recovery LLC, 2020

WL 4365634, at *5 (S.D. Ohio July 30, 2020) (awarding $5,000.00 in emotional distress damages

to FDCPA plaintiff on evidence of panic attacks, difficulty sleeping, and trouble focusing at work,

as submitted in declaration).

C. Attorney’s Fees and Costs

“The FDCPA mandates the award of ‘a reasonable attorney’s fee’ and costs to a prevailing

party.” Dowling v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, 320 F. App’x 442, 446 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing 15

U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and Lee v. Thomas & Thomas, 109 F.3d 302, 307 (6th Cir. 1997)). Pursuant

to that fee-shifting provision, Plaintiff seeks $3,545.00 in attorney’s fees, $402.00 in costs, and

$226.50 in expenses. (ECF No. 10 at 12).

The Court first will evaluate the request for attorney’s fees. As explained in Miller v. Ability

Recovery Services, LLC:

The starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable attorney fee is the

“lodestar” amount, which is calculated by multiplying the number of hours

reasonably expended on the litigation by a reasonable hourly rate. Where the party

seeking the attorney fees has established that the number of hours and the rate

claimed are reasonable, the lodestar is presumed to be the reasonable fee to which

counsel is entitled. A district court has broad discretion to determine what

constitutes a reasonable hourly rate for an attorney. The prevailing market rate in

the relevant community is a useful indication of what constitutes a reasonable rate.

The “prevailing market rate” is defined as that rate which lawyers of comparable

skill and experience can reasonably expect to command.

2019 WL 1227777, at *5 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 15, 2019) (internal quotation marks and citations

omitted).

Plaintiff’s counsel has calculated his fees from a lodestar rate of $300 per hour for himself

and $50 per hour for his paralegal. (ECF No. 11). Counsel has presented ample evidence, by way

of declaration (ECF No. 10-2), that these are reasonable hourly rates. In similar FDCPA cases,

courts in this District awarded Counselor Hilton fees of $250 and $275 per hour. See Grimm, 2019

WL 4508921, at *4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 19, 2019); Blevins, 2020 WL 4365634, at *6. In other cases,

Counselor Hilton has billed up to $325 per hour. (ECF No. 10-2 ¶ 3). The requested rate of $300

per hour is proportionate to Counselor Hilton’s own past fee awards and to the prevailing market

rate for attorneys of comparable experience. The rate for the work of the firm’s paralegal, at $50

per hour, is reasonable as well. See Grimm, 2019 WL 4508921, at *4 (awarding $50 per hour).

The hours multiplier also must be reviewed to ensure that the effort expended on the

client’s behalf reasonably aligns with the demands of the case. See Woolridge v. Marlene Indus.

Corp., 898 F.2d 1169, 1173 (6th Cir. 1990) (“The standard is whether a reasonable attorney would

have believed the work to be reasonably expended in pursuit of success at the point in time when

the work was performed.”). Here, Plaintiff’s counsel billed 11.7 hours for his own work and 0.7

hours for the paralegal’s work. (ECF No. 11). The Court has reviewed counsel’s time logs (Id.)

and finds the entries to be appropriate. It also finds that 12.4 total hours was a reasonable amount

of time to perform research, file this lawsuit, and draft the default judgment motion.

Finally, the FDCPA permits a prevailing plaintiff to recover costs. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).

Plaintiff seeks costs totaling $628.50, composed of $402.00 in filing fees and $226.50 in “service

of process” expenses. (ECF No. 10 at 12, 14). On review, the Court concludes that the costs sought

by Plaintiff are reasonable. See Brown v. Halsted Fin. Servs., LLC, 2013 WL 693168, at *3 (S.D.

Ohio Feb. 26, 2013) (awarding filing fee as costs); Thompson v. Rosenthal, 2014 WL 7185313, at

*13 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 16, 2014) (awarding service of process expenses as costs). As such, the Court

will award the full amount requested.

D. Total Damages

To summarize, the Court awards $1,600.00 in statutory damages, $10,000.00 in actual

damages, $3,545.00 in attorney’s fees, $402.00 in costs, and $226.50 in expenses, for a total

judgment of $15,773.50.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants

APG and Carruba is GRANTED. A DEFAULT JUDGMENT is entered against the two named

Defendants, and damages, costs, and fees are awarded in the full requested amount of $15,773.50.

This case is hereby CLOSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

—_—

ALGENOW/L. MARB

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: March 28, 2022

14