United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
VIRGINIA M. HERNANDEZ COVINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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.
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
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.).
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. #
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. (Doc. # 20).
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 ...