Van Norden v. Blackwater Legal Group
2:22-cv-01814
| D. Nev. | Dec 10, 2024Background
- In September 2022, Donna Van Norden received a debt collection letter from Blackwater Legal Group about a payday loan originated in 2011.
- The letter threatened imminent legal action, despite the debt being more than six years old, which is beyond Nevada’s statute of limitations for contract-based claims.
- Van Norden filed suit in October 2022, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) because threatening to sue on a time-barred debt misrepresents the debt's legal status.
- Blackwater failed to respond or appear in the litigation, leading to an entry of default by the Clerk and a subsequent motion for default judgment by Van Norden.
- The court previously denied Van Norden’s first motion for default judgment due to lack of factual support but granted the amended motion, awarding statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs.
- The court found the statutory damages request excessive but granted partial damages and the full amount of requested attorney’s fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether threatening legal action on a time-barred debt violates the FDCPA | Blackwater’s letter was a threat to sue on a debt past the statute of limitations, violating the FDCPA | None given; defendant did not appear | The threat, even absent actual suit, violates the FDCPA |
| Whether plaintiff is entitled to the maximum statutory damages of $1,000 | Van Norden sought $1,000, citing distress and seeing a therapist | None given | Court found insufficient proof for maximum, awarded $500 |
| Reasonableness of attorney’s fees and litigation costs | Fees and costs were detailed and calculated via lodestar method | None given | Court found fees and costs reasonable and awarded them |
| Appropriateness of default judgment given the procedural posture | Default judgment warranted as Blackwater failed to appear or respond | None given | Default judgment granted in plaintiff’s favor |
Key Cases Cited
- Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting out a multi-factor test for entry of default judgment)
- Kaiser v. Cascade Capital, LLC, 989 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2021) (threatening suit on a time-barred debt can violate the FDCPA)
- Cripps v. Life Ins. Co., 980 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (default does not establish legally insufficient claims)