Floyd v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LOUIS FLOYD, Case No. 20-cv-01520-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' 9 v. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; VACATING HEARING DATE; 10 SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., et DIRECTIONS TO CLERK al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, filed November 30, 14 2021.1 Defendants have not filed a response thereto. Having read and considered the 15 papers filed in support of the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for 16 determination on the papers filed in support of the motion, VACATES the hearing 17 scheduled for March 10, 2022, and rules as follows: 18 1. To the extent plaintiff seeks an award of $500 in statutory damages under the 19 Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as well an award of costs, the motion, for 20 the reasons stated by plaintiff (see Pl.'s Mot. at 8:15-12:17, 13:11-14:17), is hereby 21 GRANTED. 22 2. To the extent plaintiff additionally seeks an award of treble damages under the 23 TCPA, the motion is hereby DENIED, as the complaint fails to allege facts to support a 24 finding that any defendant willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA. See Strange v. Doe 25 #1, 2020 WL 2476545, at *5 (W.D. La. Ma 12, 2020) (holding plaintiff seeking default 26

27 1 By order filed January 12, 2022, the above-titled action was reassigned to the 1 judgment as to TCPA claim not entitled to award of treble damages, where plaintiff failed 2 || to allege "any factual basis, beyond his conclusory statements," to support finding 3 || defendant willfully or knowingly violated TCPA). 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 || Dated: January 20, 2022 . INE M. CHESNEY 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28