Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-00747/USCOURTS-almd-1_05-cv-00747-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

ARTHUR EARL CLARK and wife, )

BARBARA E. CLARK, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:05cv747-MHT

) (WO)

AMSOUTH MORTGAGE COMPANY, )

INC., a corporation, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This case arises from the “forced placing of flood

insurance” on the plaintiffs’ property because it was

incorrectly designated as being located in a flood-hazard

zone. The plaintiffs have asserted claims under the Fair

Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.,

and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15

U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., as well as asserted various statelaw contract and tort claims. This court has

jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant to 15

Case 1:05-cv-00747-MHT-WC Document 54 Filed 06/23/06 Page 1 of 5
2

U.S.C. §§ 1681p (FCRA) and 1692k(d) (FDCPA) and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 (federal question); it has supplemental

jurisdiction over the state-law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C § 1367.

Currently before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion

seeking denial or delay of the defendants’ recently filed

motions for summary judgment. Oral argument was conducted

on June 22, 2006. The plaintiffs argue that the

defendants’ summary-judgment motions are premature

because the plaintiffs have not had an adequate

opportunity to complete discovery. However, the

plaintiffs concede that they do not have any outstanding

discovery requests; that they have not engaged in any

discovery beyond the initial disclosures in the nine

months since this court entered, on September 19, 2005,

its “uniform scheduling order” setting a discoverycompletion deadline of July 26, 2006; and that it will

take the plaintiffs another two weeks, until July 6, to

Case 1:05-cv-00747-MHT-WC Document 54 Filed 06/23/06 Page 2 of 5
3

prepare their written-discovery requests, leaving the

defendants only three weeks or so to respond. 

The court rejects the plaintiffs’ motion because they

have been on notice for nine months that this case is set

for trial on January 8, 2007, and that the discovery

deadline is July 26, 2006. The plaintiffs are asking the

court to sanction their decision to wait until less than

a month before the discovery deadline to squeeze in all

the discovery they should have conducted over the last

nine months. Further, because the plaintiffs have waited

so late to begin discovery, the defendants would not

have, without an extension of the discovery deadline (an

extension that has not been requested), the 30-day period

of time allowed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33

and 34 to respond to these last-minute written-discovery

requests; thus, to delay submission of the summaryjudgment motions would not really benefit the plaintiffs,

for they have waited too late to allow the defendants

their allotted time to respond to the plaintiffs’

Case 1:05-cv-00747-MHT-WC Document 54 Filed 06/23/06 Page 3 of 5
4

discovery. The court will not grant the plaintiffs’

motion when it is based on nothing but the plaintiffs’

own lack of diligence.

Even if this court were inclined to overlook the

plaintiffs’ dilatoriness and grant their request, the

plaintiffs have not complied with the procedural

requirements for requesting that the court withhold

consideration of a pending summary-judgment motion

without further discovery. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 56(f) governs granting summary judgment before

discovery has taken place. It states that: 

“Should it appear from the affidavits of

a party opposing the motion that the

party cannot for reasons stated present

by affidavit facts essential to justify

the party’s opposition, the court may

refuse the application for judgment or

may order a continuance to permit

affidavits to be obtained or depositions

to be taken or discovery to be had or

may make such other order as is just.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). The Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals interprets Rule 56(f) to mean that a party

opposing summary judgment must inform the court by

Case 1:05-cv-00747-MHT-WC Document 54 Filed 06/23/06 Page 4 of 5
affidavit of the particular facts the party expects to

discover and explain to the court how these facts will

enable that party to rebut the summary-judgment motion by

creating a genuine issue of material fact. Harbert

Int’l, Inc. v. James, 157 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th Cir.

1998); Reflectone, Inc. v. Farrand Optical Co., 862 F.2d

841, 843-44 (11th Cir. 1989); Cowan v. J.C. Penney Co.,

790 F.2d 1529, 1530 (11th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). The

plaintiffs have not presented the court with the

necessary affidavit. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the plaintiffs’

motion for protective order and denial of defendants'

motions for summary judgment as premature (Doc. No. 35)

is denied. 

DONE, this the 23rd day of June, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00747-MHT-WC Document 54 Filed 06/23/06 Page 5 of 5