Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Milana v. Deca Financial Services, LLC

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

July 30, 2018

MARIA MILANA, Plaintiff,
v.
DECA FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

          VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court in consideration of Plaintiff Maria Milana's Motion for Default Judgment, filed on July 2, 2018. (Doc. # 19). In the Motion, Plaintiff requests a default judgment against Defendant DECA Financial Services, LLC, in the amount of $30, 000, as well as post-judgment interest. (Id.). For the following reasons, the Court grants the Motion to the extent that it directs the Clerk to enter judgment in the amount of $3, 000.00.

         I. Background

         On February 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Complaint (Doc. # 1) against Defendant, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.

         Plaintiff alleges that in January 2013, Defendant began using an automated telephone dialing system (ATDS) to call Plaintiff's cellular telephone number, which continued into 2014. (Id. at 3). The calls were placed in an effort to collect a medical debt. (Id.). Plaintiff informed Defendant that the debt was previously paid and requested Defendant correct the error and stop calling her. (Id.). Defendant continued to call Plaintiff using an ATDS, sometimes multiple times a day and on back-to-back days. (Id. at 4). The Complaint alleges Defendant placed about 20 calls to Plaintiff's cell phone throughout the aforementioned period. (Id.).

         Plaintiff served Defendant on May 1, 2018, making Defendant's answer due on May 22, 2018. (Doc. # 12). Plaintiff then moved for Clerk's entry of default after Defendant failed to respond to the Complaint or enter an appearance. (Doc. # 15). The Clerk subsequently granted Plaintiff's Motion and entered a default against Defendant on May 29, 2018. (Doc. # 16).

         On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Default Judgment and an affidavit in support. (Doc. # 19; Doc. # 19-1). Because Plaintiff did not specify dates in her affidavit or provide call logs, the Court directed Plaintiff to provide additional information concerning which calls took place within the four-year statute of limitations period.[1] (Doc. # 20).

         On July 27, 2018, Plaintiff filed a supplemental affidavit attesting that she contemporaneously took notes recording some calls she received from Defendant. (Doc. # 24-1). Based on these notes, Plaintiff avers in her affidavit that she received calls on the following dates:

January 18, 2013 (one call)
January 21, 2013 (two calls)
March 8, 2013 (four calls)
March 11, 2013 (two calls)
March 13, 2013 (three calls)
March 14, 2013 (three calls)
March 15, 2013 (two calls)
March 18, 2013 (two ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.