The debtor filed a complaint seeking contempt for violation of the discharge injunction and seeking remedies for coercive collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act as well as a motion for default judgment.  The court found that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction on the FDCPA claims.  The court further found that the creditor either was aware that the debt had been discharged or proceeded, after being informed that the debtor had a bankruptcy attorney, with a reckless disregard as to whether or not the debtor continued to have any legal liability to pay the debt the creditor was bent on collecting.  The court awarded compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.