Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hudson v. Velo Legal Services PLC

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 2, 2019

CASSANDRA LEE HUDSON, Plaintiff,
v.
VELO LEGAL SERVICES, PLC and SCOTT RENNER, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT

          STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         On April 8, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff Cassandra Lee Hudson's motion for summary judgment. ECF 54. The Court noted that, "[b]ased on the undisputed facts," the Defendants Velo Legal Services, PLC and Scott Renner appeared to be "entitled to summary judgment." Id. at 883. Pursuant to Rule 56(f), the Court provided Plaintiff notice and reasonable time to respond. Id. The Court directed Plaintiff to file a brief "detailing any genuine disputes of material fact" that precluded summary judgment in Defendants' favor. Id. at 884.

         On April 21, 2019, Plaintiff filed her amended supplemental brief. ECF 56. On April 26, 2019, Defendants file their response. ECF 57. The Court has reviewed the briefs and finds that a hearing is unnecessary. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). For the reasons below, the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants pursuant to Rule 56(f).

         BACKGROUND

         The Court's previous opinion detailed the relevant facts. ECF 54, PgID 870- 71. The Court adopts that summary here.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         "After giving notice and a reasonable time to respond," the Court may "grant summary judgment for a nonmovant." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). Summary judgment is proper if there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact" and a party is "entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is material for purposes of summary judgment if its resolution would establish or refute an "essential element[] of a cause of action or defense asserted by the parties[.]" Kendall v. Hoover Co., 751 F.2d 171, 174 (6th Cir. 1984) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 881 (6th ed. 1979)).

         The Court views the facts and "draw[s] all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Stiles ex rel. D.S. v. Grainger Cty., 819 F.3d 834, 848 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). The Court must then determine "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." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). And although the Court may not make credibility judgments or weigh the evidence, Moran v. Al Basit LLC, 788 F.3d 201, 204 (6th Cir. 2015), a mere "scintilla" of evidence is insufficient to survive summary judgment; "there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff," Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

         DISCUSSION

         The Court previously determined that (1) Defendants violated the FDCPA by serving Plaintiff with a state-court complaint containing an amount different from that stated in a filed state-court complaint, ECF 54, PgID 873; (2) Defendants were nevertheless entitled to the bona fide error defense, id. at 880-82; and (3) Defendants were entitled to seek interest in the previous state-court proceeding, id. at 875-76.

         Plaintiff's supplemental brief argues that Defendants are not entitled to the bona fide error defense and that they sought an impermissible amount of interest. See generally ECF 56. The Court addresses each argument in turn.

         I. Bona Fide Error Defense

         Plaintiff identifies two issues of fact that she believes preclude summary judgment: (1) "a genuine issue of fact as to whether the procedures [adopted by Defendants] were 'reasonably adapted' to avoid the specific error at issue;" and (2) Defendants "never attempted to rectify serving the wrong complaint," which "creates an issue of genuine material factual dispute for the trier of fact." ECF 56, PgID 1261- 62.

         A. Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.