Fujita v. The Best Service Company

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJanuary 29, 2020
Docket4:19-cv-00580
StatusUnknown

This text of Fujita v. The Best Service Company (Fujita v. The Best Service Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fujita v. The Best Service Company, (N.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 OAKLAND DIVISION 9 10 KEIKI KAY MITSU FUJITA, Case No: C 19-00580 SBA 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 12 SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY vs. DEFENDANT HARRIS & ZIDE 13 THE BEST SERVICE COMPANY, et al., Dkt. 36 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 Plaintiff Keiki Kay Mitsu Fujita (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant pro se action alleging 18 claims, inter alia, under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), id. § 1681 et seq., and the 19 Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. As party- 20 defendants, Plaintiff has named The Best Service Company (“Best”); Hunt & Henriques 21 (“Hunt”); and Harris & Zide (“Harris”). Only Harris and Hunt remain as party-defendants 22 in the action. 23 The parties are presently before the Court on the Harris’ Motion for Summary 24 Judgment. Dkt. 36. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this 25 matter and being fully informed, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion for the reasons set 26 forth below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without 27 oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff is an individual residing in Kensington, California. Compl. at 1, Dkt. 1. 3 Defendant Harris is a law firm engaged in the business of debt collection. Id. ¶ 16. On 4 December 12, 2018, Harris received a file from its client, Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of 5 America”), for a delinquent credit account in the amount of $2,521.18 belonging to 6 Plaintiff. Zide Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt. 36-1. The next day, Harris sent a letter to Plaintiff 7 demanding payment of her outstanding debt. Id. ¶ 5 & Ex. A. On December 24, 2018, 8 Harris received a letter from Plaintiff requesting validation of her debt. Id. ¶ 6 & Ex. B. 9 Harris provided the requested validation by letter on January 2, 2019. Id. & Ex. C. On 10 January 22, 2019, Harris received a second letter requesting validation from Plaintiff. Id. 11 ¶ 7 & Ex. D. Harris responded to Plaintiff’s request on January 23, 2019. Id. & Ex. E. 12 On February 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant action in this Court. The Complaint 13 alleges five claims, which are brought against all Defendants, except as noted: (1) violation 14 of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b); (2) violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(8); 15 (3) violation of the FDCPA, id. § 1692d(5); (4) violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692f; 16 and (5) violation of the Telephone Communication Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (as to Best only).1 17 On February 19, 2019, Harris, on behalf of Bank of America, filed a collection 18 lawsuit against Plaintiff in Contra Costa County Superior Court (“Superior Court”). Zide 19 Decl. ¶ 9. On September 16, 2019, the Superior Court conducted a trial in the collection 20 action and entered judgment in favor of Bank of America. Id. ¶ 24. The judgment is in the 21 amount of $2,521.08, representing Plaintiff’s delinquent debt, plus an additional $354.50 in 22 court costs, for a total of $2,875.58. Id. 23 In the instant action, Harris served Plaintiff with discovery requests, including 24 requests for admission (“RFAs”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Zide 25 Decl. ¶ 18 & Ex. O. Harris served the discovery requests on July 9, 2019, see id., meaning 26 27 1 Pursuant to a stipulation between Plaintiff and Best, all claims against Best were 1 that responses were due by August 8, 2019, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Plaintiff refused 2 to respond to the discovery requests, claiming that she was dissatisfied with Harris’ 3 responses to discovery in the state court collection action. Zide Decl. ¶ 21. As a result of 4 Plaintiff’s failure to respond to the RFA, the matters set forth in the RFA are deemed 5 admitted and are “conclusively established” for purposes of this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 36(a)(3), (b)(3).2 7 II. LEGALSTANDARD 8 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when it 9 is demonstrated that there “is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is 10 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The burden of establishing 11 the nonexistence of a ‘genuine issue’ is on the party moving for summary judgment.” 12 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). “[A] party seeking summary judgment 13 always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its 14 motion, and identifying those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to 15 interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it 16 believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. at 323; see Fed. 17 R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). 18 Where the moving party meets its burden on summary judgment, the burden then 19 shifts to the non-moving party to designate specific facts demonstrating the existence of a 20 genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. “This burden is not a light one. 21 The non-moving party must show more than the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence.” 22 In re Oracle Corp. Secs. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 387 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Anderson v. 23 Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986)). An issue is “genuine” only if there is 24 sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to find for the non-moving party. See 25 26 2 Plaintiff attaches responses to Harris’ RFAs to her opposition to the instant motion. 27 Under Rule 6(b), a party may seek an extension of time after a deadline has expired upon a showing of excusable neglect. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Plaintiff has not made a motion 1 Anderson, 477 U.S. at 322-23. All reasonable inferences are to be drawn in favor of the 2 party against whom summary judgment is sought. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith 3 Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). 4 III. DISCUSSION 5 A. FCRA 6 The purpose of the FCRA is to ensure fair and accurate credit reporting, protect 7 consumer privacy, and promote efficiency in the banking system. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. 8 v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007); 15 U.S.C. § 1681.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr
551 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court, 2007)
In Re Oracle Corp. Securities Litigation
627 F.3d 376 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Toby D. Nelson v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.
282 F.3d 1057 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP
584 F.3d 1147 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Santopietro v. Howell
27 F. Supp. 3d 1108 (D. Nevada, 2014)
Turner v. Cook
362 F.3d 1219 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Fujita v. The Best Service Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fujita-v-the-best-service-company-cand-2020.