Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01956/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01956-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURIE SUE DRAKE,

No. CIV S-06-1956 DFL DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P.,

Defendant.

 /

This matter came before the court on February 23, 2007, for hearing on plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment. Laurie Sue Drake, proceeding pro se, appeared on her own

behalf. Margaret Ziemianek appeared telephonically on behalf of defendant.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint in the Siskiyou County

Superior Court on June 30, 2006. By her complaint, plaintiff alleges four violations of the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Plaintiff seeks actual damages in the amount of

$10,000.00 and statutory damages totaling $4,000.00. Defendant removed the case to this court

on August 31, 2006, and filed its answer to the complaint on September 1, 2006.

Summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no

genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter

of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The party moving for summary judgment “always bears the initial

Case 2:06-cv-01956-RRB-DAD Document 27 Filed 02/27/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those

portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue

of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(c)).

Where the party moving for summary judgment will bear the burden of proof at

trial, the party must come forward with evidence that would entitle it to a directed verdict if the

evidence were uncontroverted at trial. Houghton v. South, 965 F.2d 1532, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Put another way, the party must establish the absence of a genuine issue of fact on each issue

material to its claim. Id. at 1537.

If the moving party meets its initial responsibility, the burden then shifts to the

opposing party to establish that a genuine issue as to any material fact actually does exist. 

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); see also First Nat’l

Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89 (1968); Ruffin v. County of Los Angeles,

607 F.2d 1276, 1280 (9th Cir. 1979). The opposing party must demonstrate that the fact in

contention is material, i.e., a fact that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing

law, and that the dispute is genuine, i.e., the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a

verdict for the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);

T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). The

“purpose of summary judgment is to ‘pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see

whether there is a genuine need for trial.’” Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(e) advisory committee’s note on 1963 amendments).

In this case, plaintiff’s claims arise under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 

Under this Act, a debt collector is required to provide the consumer with a written notice that

“unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the

debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector.” 15

Case 2:06-cv-01956-RRB-DAD Document 27 Filed 02/27/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

U.S.C. § 1692g(a)(3). The notice must also advise the consumer that “if the consumer notifies

the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is

disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against

the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the

debt collector.” 15 U.S.C. § 1962g(a)(4). 

If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the

thirty-day period described in subsection (a) of this section that the

debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer

requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt

collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion

thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a

copy of a judgment, or name and address of the original creditor,

and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address

of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt

collector.

15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).

Having considered plaintiff’s complaint, all written materials submitted in

connection with plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and the parties’ arguments in open

court, the undersigned finds as follows: on or before November 28, 2004, plaintiff received

defendant’s debt collection letter dated November 19, 2004; the letter, on law firm letterhead,

states that the firm represents MBNA/Mastercard and specifies an account number and balance

due; defendant’s letter notes plaintiff’s right to dispute the debt and includes a notice that the

debt will be assumed to be valid if the consumer does not, “within thirty days after receipt of this

notice, dispute the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof”; in a note written on defendant’s

letter and in an accompanying letter dated November 28, 2004, plaintiff characterizes defendant’s

letter as an “offer to contract” and refuses the offer but does not dispute the debt, request

verification of the debt, or include any words that imply a dispute or a request for verification of

the debt; plaintiff’s letter to defendant dated March 21, 2005, is plaintiff’s first communication

that disputes the validity of the debt; although defendant had no legal obligation to provide

verification of the debt in response to plaintiff’s untimely request, defendant sent verification

Case 2:06-cv-01956-RRB-DAD Document 27 Filed 02/27/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

documents obtained from the MBNA to plaintiff on April 18, 2005; when plaintiff sent defendant

a letter dated December 9, 2005, in which she requests verification of the debt, defendant had no

obligation to provide verification documents. As the party who will bear the burden of proof at

trial, plaintiff has not come forward with evidence that demonstrates a violation of the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s January 12, 2007

motion for summary judgment be denied.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within

ten (10) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, either party may file

written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: February 26, 2007.

DAD:kw

ddad1\orders.prose\drake1956.oahf&r

Case 2:06-cv-01956-RRB-DAD Document 27 Filed 02/27/07 Page 4 of 4