United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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).
Court's previous opinion detailed the relevant facts. ECF
54, PgID 870- 71. The Court adopts that summary here.
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)).
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.
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.
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.
Bona Fide Error Defense
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.
Motion for ...