Bradford v. Telerecovery
2:16-cv-02933
E.D. La.Jun 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Erin Bradford sued Telerecovery (debt collector) and Experian (consumer reporting agency) under the FCRA and FDCPA for allegedly inaccurate credit reporting and “re‑aging” her account after she disputed it.
- Bradford sent a dispute to Experian on August 21, 2015; Experian investigated and the reported "Date of Status" and "First Reported" were changed from July 2015 to September 2015, which Bradford says is misleading and harmed her credit.
- Experian answered; Telerecovery did not answer and only sent an informal letter; Clerk entered Telerecovery’s default and Bradford moved for default judgment.
- The court found subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and personal jurisdiction over Telerecovery (principal place of business in Louisiana); service on Telerecovery’s registered agent was proper.
- The court concluded Bradford’s well‑pleaded allegations state viable claims under the FCRA (§ 1681s‑2(b)) and the FDCPA (§§ 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(8), 1692e(10), 1692f) and that default judgment was appropriate.
- The court awarded $1,012.00 (including $12 debt satisfaction and $1,000 statutory damages) plus $420.00 costs and post‑judgment interest, but denied Bradford’s request for $9,000 in attorneys’ fees for lack of supporting time and rate evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction and service | Service on Telerecovery’s registered agent in Louisiana was proper; court has jurisdiction | (No appearance/opposition) | Service valid; court has personal jurisdiction |
| Sufficiency of FCRA claim (§1681s‑2(b)) | Telerecovery failed to reasonably investigate and re‑aged dates after dispute; acted negligently/willfully | (No opposition) | Plaintiff’s allegations, taken as true on default, state a claim under §1681s‑2(b) |
| Sufficiency of FDCPA claims (§1692e variants, §1692f) | Re‑aging and reporting false dates are false/deceptive communications in debt collection | (No opposition) | Allegations sufficiently state FDCPA violations |
| Damages and attorney’s fees | Requests $1,012 damages, $420 costs, $9,000 fees ($450×20 hrs) | (No opposition; court requires proof) | Awarded $1,012 + $420 + interest; attorney’s fees denied for lack of time records and community rate evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 84 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1996) (procedural steps for default judgment)
- Sys. Pipe & Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovskiy, 242 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 2001) (court must assure jurisdiction before entering default judgment)
- Sun Bank of Ocala v. Pelican Homestead & Sav. Ass’n, 874 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1989) (default judgments are drastic and not favored)
- Nishimatsu Constr. Ltd. v. Houston Nat’l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200 (5th Cir. 1975) (on accepting allegations as true in default)
- United Artists Corp. v. Freeman, 605 F.2d 854 (5th Cir. 1979) (damages on default normally require hearing or detailed affidavits)
- Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97 (1987) (service of process is essential to personal jurisdiction)
- Daugherty v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., 836 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2016) (FDCPA §1692e scope on deceptive practices)
- Heidtman v. County of El Paso, 171 F.3d 1038 (5th Cir. 1999) (lodestar method for attorney’s fees)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (guidance on awarding attorney’s fees)
- Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886 (1984) (burden to justify requested hourly rates)