Opinion
Civil No. JFM-04-3181.
March 24, 2005
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff has obtained a default judgment against the defendant for violations of (1) the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3905(k)(1) ("the D.C. Act"), (2) the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1639 ("HOEPA"), and (3) the Truth in Leading Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. ("TILA"). As to these three claims, plaintiff seeks to recover, respectively, $102,600 under the D.C. Act, $2,000 under TILA, and $34,200 under HOEPA.
In her motion and memorandum in support of judgment and in her proposed judgment plaintiff apparently has misstated the amount she is claiming under the D.C. Act and HOEPA. Those papers assert that she is claiming $97,200 under the D.C. Act, and $32,400 under HOEPA. I believe that plaintiff has transposed $32,400 for the figure $34,200, which is the sum of the specific items of damage plaintiff claims. The $34,200 is also the amount that plaintiff states in her supporting affidavit that she paid to defendant.
I will enter judgment in favor of plaintiff. However, I believe that the $34,200 she seeks to recover under HOEPA is duplicative of the $102,600 she is recovering under the D.C. Act. The law is clear that it is appropriate both to impose a penalty under TILA and to permit a plaintiff to recover under any applicable state law for the wrongs committed by defendant. See, e.g., Williams v. Pub. Fin. Corp., 598 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1979); Pub. Fin. Corp. v. Riddle, 403 N.E.2d 1316 (Ill.App. 1980). I likewise find no difficulty in imposing penalties upon a wrongdoing defendant under both an applicable federal and state statute. Therefore, I am awarding plaintiff both $2,000 in damages under TILA and treble damages under the D.C. Act.
I do not, however, believe that plaintiff should receive redundant compensatory damages. That would be the effect if I were to grant her both a $34,200 recovery under HOEPA and treble damages under the D.C. Act. One third of the damages under the D.C. Act are compensatory in nature. Award of the additional two thirds of the trebled damages is entirely appropriate in order to effect the purposes of the D.C. Act of "ensuring full compensation" and "encouraging private enforcement of the law." See Williams v. Gov't Mortgage Investors Corp., 225 F.3d 738, 745 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Dist. Cablevision Ltd. P'ship v. Bassin, 828 A.2d 714, 725-29 (D.C. 2003). That does not mean, however, that plaintiff should receive compensatory damages both under the D.C. Act and HOEPA.
Another aspect of plaintiff's claimed damages initially gave me pause. She is requesting as part of her damages $2,300 she paid when paying off the subject loan on account of an additional loan made to one Al Smith. That loan apparently was a separate transaction between defendant and Smith. However, I have concluded that plaintiff is correct in seeking recovery of the $2,300 in this case because repayment of the loan as part of the payoff of the loan she received from defendant was, as she contends, in effect a separate fee.
A separate order entering a default judgment in favor of plaintiff is being entered herewith.
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 54, and the Court finding there is no just reason for delaying entry of final judgment, it is, this 24th day of March 2005ORDERED
1. Final judgment is hereby entered against the defendant, Timothy Geppert and in favor of the plaintiff Janice Smith, as follows:
a. For her claim under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et. seq., a judgment in the amount of $2,000;
b. For her claim under the DC Consumer Protections Laws, DC Code 28-3901, et. seq. a judgment in the amount of $102,600; and
2. Counsel for the plaintiff file, within twenty (20) days, a cost and fee application, as the plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the court.