Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180501_0002935.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:49:19+00:00

Document:
FindACase | Schore v. Renton Collections, Inc.
Schore v. Renton Collections, Inc.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 7) and Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 8). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion (Dkt. No. 7) and DENIES Defendant's cross-motion (Dkt. No. 8) for the reasons explained herein.
In early May 2017, Schore received a letter from Defendant Renton Collections, Inc. (“RCI”) that stated her past due account had been “assigned to our office for collection by SEATTLE EMERGENY PHYSNS.” (Id. at 7.) The letter directed Schore to remit payment of $412 to RCI on its website or by mail. (Id.) On May 19, 2017, Schore's husband contacted SEP, confirmed the outstanding debt, and paid off the balance via credit card. (Dkt. No. 7-2 at 2.) To ensure the claim was resolved, Mr. Schore called RCI and notified it of the payment to SEP. (Id.) Despite the Schores' payment, RCI subsequently called them several times attempting to collect the SEP medical debt.
The Schores filed this lawsuit alleging RCI violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., the Washington Collection Agency Act (“WCAA”), Revised Code of Washington § 19.16, et seq., and the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) Revised Code of Washington § 19.86, et seq., by attempting to collect a debt that they already paid. (Dkt. No. 1.) The parties have submitted cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of RCI's liability.
RCI asks the Court to grant a continuance pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), if it concludes that summary judgment is premature. (Dkt. No. 8 at 19.) The Court may continue a motion for summary judgment when the nonmoving party sets forth “specified reasons [why] it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition” to summary judgment.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). “A party requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule 56(f) must identify by affidavit the specific facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude summary judgment.” Tatum v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f)).
RCI has not identified by affidavit the specific facts that additional discovery would reveal or explained how such information would preclude summary judgment. RCI generally states that it has not conducted certain discovery-for example, depositions-but does not explain how the discovery would aid it in opposing summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2.) The Court therefore DENIES RCI's motion for a continuance under Rule 56(d).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1692
 § 19
 § 19
 v.