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.

Sarah Jean Haywood v. Lra Corporation D/B/A L.R.A. Corporation Debt Collection Services and Larry Raybin

April 5, 2013

SARAH JEAN HAYWOOD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LRA CORPORATION D/B/A L.R.A. CORPORATION DEBT COLLECTION SERVICES AND LARRY RAYBIN, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Leinenweber

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

C ONTENTS

I.INTRODUCTION

II.BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF APPLICABLE LAW

A.Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

B.Damages under the FDCPA

III.PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

IV.ATTESTATION OF THE FACTS Affidavit of Plaintiff (Exhibit A)

V.ATTORNEYS'FEES &COURT COSTS

A.Plaintiff's Counsel's Hourly Rates

B.Attorney's Rates -- Laffey Matrix (Exhibit C)

C.Attorney's Rates -- Consumer Attorney's Rates Survey (Exhibit D)

D.Hours Billed (Comprehensive listing attached hereto as Exhibit B)

VI.PRAYER FOR RELIEF

I.INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, SARAH JEAN HAYWOOD, filed the Complaint in this matter alleging, inter alia, that Defendants, LRA CORPORATION d/b/a L.R.A. CORPORATION DEBT COLLECTION SERVICES and LARRY RAYBIN, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692, et seq. ("FDCPA").

On November 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Default Defendants due to Defendants' failure to answer or otherwise plead. Said Motion was granted and on December 21, 2012, an Entry of Default was entered against Defendants. Plaintiff now moves for the entry of a Default Judgment by the Court.

II.BRIEF MEMORANDUM OF APPLICABLE LAW

A.Violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)

Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the FDCPA by the manner with which they attempted to collect an alleged debt from Plaintiff.

Specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the FDCPA as follows:

a. Used any language or symbol on any envelope or in the contents of any communication effected by the mails or telegram that indicates that the debt collector is in the debt collection business or that the communication relates to the collection of a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692b(5);

b. Communicated with the consumer after the debt collector knew the consumer was represented by an attorney with regards to the subject debt and has knowledge of, or can readily ascertain, such attorney's name and address and said attorney did not fail to respond within a reasonable period of time to communications from the debt collector, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692b(6);

c. Communicated with the consumer despite knowing that the consumer was represented by an attorney with respect to the debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff and said attorney had not consented for Defendant to have direct communication with Plaintiff in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692c(a)(2);

d. Used false, deceptive, misleading and unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect an alleged debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1692e;

e. Falsely represented the character, amount, or legal status of any debt in violation of 15 ...


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.