Lowe v. Capital Link Management LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RYAN LOWE,
Plaintiff,
21-CV-997-LJV
v. 	DECISION & ORDER
CAPITAL LINK MANAGEMENT LLC,
Defendant.
On September 3, 2021, the plaintiff, Ryan Lowe, filed a complaint alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et
seq. Docket Item 1. Several years later, Lowe moved for a default judgment against
the defendant, Capital Link Management LLC (“CLM”). Docket Item 22. For the
reasons that follow, this Court grants Lowe’s motion in part. More specifically, the Court
grants Lowe’s motion for a default judgment but awards $500 in statutory damages
instead of the $1,000 he requested. Lowe may submit his request for reasonable
attorney’s fees within 30 days of the date of this decision and order.
DISCUSSION
I. 	DEFAULT JUDGMENT
To obtain a default judgment, a party must secure a clerk’s entry of default by
demonstrating, “by affidavit or otherwise,” that the opposing party “has failed to plead or
otherwise defend” the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). In considering whether to enter a
default judgment, the court accepts the factual allegations in the complaint as true and
determines whether the alleged facts state a valid claim for relief; the court also has the
Case 1:21-cv-00997-LJV Document 27 Filed 07/14/25 Page 1 of 6

2
discretion to require further proof of necessary facts. Au Bon Pain Corp. v. Artect, Inc.,
653 F.2d 61, 65 (2d Cir. 1981) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2)). As to damages,
the court should take steps, including an evidentiary hearing when necessary, to
establish an amount with reasonable certainty. Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency,
Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d 105, 111 (2d Cir. 1997) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(2)).
II. 	FDCPA CLAIMS
A. 	Liability
Lowe asserts that CLM violated the FDCPA by sending the following text
message to the telephone number of one of Lowe’s clients:
Ryan Lowe, your account was transferred to Capital Link
Management. Current balance is $1,203.90. 	Our client is
offering an interest free, monthly payment plan as low as
$50.00 a month, or they are willing to reduce the balance to
$601.95 as a one[]time payoff. 	For more information please
call 	1-844-396-9008. 	Communication 	is 	from 	a 	Debt
Collector. To opt out reply STOP[.]
Docket Item 1 at ¶10; see Docket Item 22-3. Lowe further alleges that his client was not
responsible for the repayment of Lowe’s debt. Docket Item 1 at ¶ 12. And Lowe says
that he did not give CLM permission to communicate with his client about the debt. Id.
at ¶ 13.
Accepting those allegations as true, the Court finds that the complaint has
adequately alleged CLM’s violation of the FDCPA. More specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1692b
prohibits a debt collector from “stat[ing] that [the] consumer owes any debt” when
“communicating with any person other than the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692b(2). In
fact, communications with any person other than the consumer are permitted only for
Case 1:21-cv-00997-LJV Document 27 Filed 07/14/25 Page 2 of 6

3
the purpose of acquiring location information. Id. §§ 1692b, 1692c(b). The text
message sent to the telephone number of Lowe’s client stated that Lowe owed a debt
and was not for the purpose of acquiring information about Lowe’s location or how he
could be reached. See Docket Item 22-1 at 4-5.1 Therefore, for purposes of obtaining a
default judgment, Lowe has established a violation of the FDCPA.
B. 	Damages
Under the FDCPA, a court may award a plaintiff up to $1,000 in statutory
damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1629k(a)(2). Proof that the statute was violated warrants some
damages, but “a court must then exercise its discretion to determine how much to
award, up to the $1,000.00 ceiling.” Savino v. Comput. Credit, Inc., 164 F.3d 81, 86 (2d
Cir. 1998).
In calculating an appropriate award of statutory damages, the court considers
such factors as the frequency, persistence, nature, and intentionality of noncompliance
by the debt collector. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(b)(1). Awards of the $1,000 statutory
maximum are rare and “are typically granted [only] in cases where the defendants’
violations are ‘particularly egregious or intimidating.’” Carbin v. N. Resol. Grp., LLC,
2013 WL 4779231, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2013) (quoting Cordero v. Collection Co.,
2012 WL 1118210, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2012)).
Here, Lowe seeks $1,000 in statutory damages.2 Docket Item 22-1 at 5. In
support of his request for the statutory maximum, he states that “CLM blatantly violated
1 Page numbers in docket citations refer to ECF pagination.
2 In his complaint, Lowe also sought actual damages based on alleged emotional
injuries from CLM’s conduct. Docket Item 1 at ¶¶ 15-16. In his motion for default
judgment, however, he seeks judgment for statutory damages only. See Docket Item
Case 1:21-cv-00997-LJV Document 27 Filed 07/14/25 Page 3 of 6

4
the requirements of the FDCPA” and that its “violations . . . were not mere technical
violations, but instead deliberately and intentionally attempting to collect a debt from
[Lowe] by disclosing details about the debt to an unauthorized third party.” Id. “This
conduct,” Lowe urges, “goes to the heart of what the FDCPA is supposed to prevent,
i.e., predatory debt collection practices.” Id.
The Court finds that a damage award of $1,000 is not warranted by the facts of
this case. See Dembitzer v. Weinberg Mediation Grp. LLC, 2018 WL 4088077, at *5
(E.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2018) (explaining that “[c]ourts of this [c]ircuit have reserved the
maximum award of $1,000 for violations that are particularly egregious” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL
4087921 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2018); see also Fajer v. Kaufman, Burns & Assocs., 2011
WL 334311, at *1, 3 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2011) (deeming award of $1,000 “excessive”
where defendant made calls to the plaintiff’s workplace and made empty threats of
litigation). CLM’s violation consisted of only one text message, and “nothing (other than
a conclusory assertion . . . in the [c]omplaint) indicates that [the communication with
Lowe’s client was] intentional.” See Dembitzer, 2018 WL 4088077, at *6.
That being said, a message to a third party, by its very nature, constitutes an
invasion of privacy that can cause real harm to the plaintiff. Taking all of the
circumstances into account, this Court finds that $500 is an appropriate award of
damages. See, e.g., Savino, 164 F.3d at 86 (affirming award of $500 for letter that
“violated the FDCPA but . . . was not threatening or abusive in tone”); Dembitzer, 2018
22-1 at 5. Therefore, this Court will deem Lowe’s “claim for actual damages to be
abandoned.” See Fajer v. Kaufman, Burns & Assocs., 2011 WL 334311, at *3 n.2
(W.D.N.Y. Jan. 28, 2011).
Case 1:21-cv-00997-LJV Document 27 Filed 07/14/25 Page 4 of 6

5
WL 4088077, at *6 (finding $500 in statutory damages appropriate where defendant “left
a message that failed to disclose it was from a debt collector, and in a second call
contacted and disclosed information about the debt to a third party”); Dona v. Midland
Credit Mgmt., Inc., 2011 WL 941204, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011) (finding $500 in
statutory damages appropriate where defendant left message on plaintiff’s answering
machine for the purposes of collecting a debt without indicating that call was from debt
collector), report and recommendation adopted, 2011 WL 939724 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 15,
2011).
C. 	Attorney’s Fees
Under the FDCPA, the court has the discretion to award reasonable attorney’s
fees to successful litigants. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3). Lowe states that he “will
submit his request for attorney’s fees and costs . . . should the Court grant [his] motion.”
Docket Item 22-1 at 5. Lowe may do so within 30 days of the date of this decision and
order.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Lowe’s motion for a default judgment is granted in
part; more specifically, he is awarded $500 in statutory damages. Lowe shall submit his
request for attorney’s fees within 30 days of the date of this decision and order.
Case 1:21-cv-00997-LJV Document 27 Filed 07/14/25 Page 5 of 6

6
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	July 14, 2025
Buffalo, New York
/s/ Lawrene J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:21-cv-00997-LJV Document 27 Filed 07/14/25 Page 6 of 6