United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
CYNTHIA ARCHER-GIFT, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
CITIGROUP, INC., THE HOME DEPOT, INC., and SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendants.
DECISION GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT, (DOC. 34), AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
PERMIT DISCOVERY, (DOC. 38) 
COHN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
an Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. §
1691, case. Plaintiff Cynthia Archer-Gift (Archer)
seeks damages relating to the denial of her applications for
credit at Defendants Sears, Roebuck and Co. (Sears) and The
Home Depot, Inc. (Home Depot) stores.
credit was in a credit card for Sears and a credit card for
Home Depot. Archer says each card was valid only at stores
affiliated with the brand company, (Doc. 16 ¶¶ 14,
29). She says each card was operated as a joint venture with
Defendant Citigroup, Inc. (Citigroup), who
“administered” cards, (Id. ¶¶
says that she never received a written “adverse
action” notice of the reason for the denial of credit
from Sears or from Home Depot, and that the notice for Sears,
in the form of a letter, was deficient based on its stated
reason “Unable to comply with consumer
have moved to dismiss, (Doc. 22), on the grounds that a
letter from each company stating the reason for the denial of
credit were sent to Archer by U.S. mail and were specific
enough to satisfy the ECOA. In support, defendants attached a
copy of each letter, (Docs. 22-2, 22-3).
response, Archer reasserted that she never received either
letter and the Sears letter's language lacked
specificity. Archer said that each defendant has not
established a letter was sent because each has not offered
proof of mailing.
Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice, (Doc. 28). It reasoned:
. . . There is a factual issue of whether Archer received an
adverse action notice from Home Depot and the statement in
the Sears notice “Unable to comply with consumer
statement” lacks precision. . . .
Defendants intend to file a motion for summary judgment
within 21 days. Archer shall have 14 days to respond.
(Id. at 2). Also, the Court granted Archer time to
conduct additional discovery relating to factual issues
identified by the Court. (See Doc. 34-6 at 18-19).
have filed a motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 34), stating
there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In support, they
attach employee declarations and business records of
responds on the merits and asks the Court to defer ruling on
the motion until she has had an opportunity to conduct
additional discovery. She has filed a “Motion to Permit
Discovery” in this regard under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d),
reasons elaborated below, Archer has failed to rebut the
presumption based on defendants' proofs that she received
each letter. Moreover, each letter's statement of the
reason for the denial of credit pertaining to Archer's
credit report was specific enough to meet the notice
requirements of the ECOA. Defendants' motion for summary
judgment, (Doc. 34), is GRANTED.
discussed below, Archer has been afforded ample opportunity
to conduct discovery in relation to the content and mailing
of each letter. For this reason, her motion to permit
additional discovery, (Doc. 38), is DENIED.
judgment will be granted if the moving party demonstrates
that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). There is no genuine issue of
material fact when “the record taken as a whole could
not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving
party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The Court must decide
“whether the evidence presents a sufficient
disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is
so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of
law.” In re Dollar Corp., 25 F.3d 1320, 1323
(6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 ...