Miller v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P.

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

DENISE MILLER, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * Civil Action No. ADC-18-2538 * TRIDENT ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC., * et al., * * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant Trident Asset Management has filed a Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 153) requesting attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and 15 U.S.C. §1681n(c) and against Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Defendant also relies on this Court’s inherent power to levy sanctions and sets forth the relevant caselaw in support of its motion. Plaintiff responded in what at best can be seen as an attempt to relitigate the granting of summary judgment (ECF No. 149 [“Memorandum Opinion”]) and a re-packaging of her motion to alter or amend judgment (ECF No. 158), sprinkled with a few arguments against sanctions (ECF No. 160). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion for sanctions. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Court previously detailed the factual background of this case in the Court’s Memorandum Opinion which is incorporated herein. In short, Plaintiff ‘s daughter, with Plaintiff’s knowledge and permission, opened an account for service with Verizon in Plaintiff’s name. Plaintiff and/or her daughter failed to pay monies due on the account which fell into arrears in the amount of $189.79, which for reporting purposes was rounded to $190. Verizon closed the account and reported the debt. Despite her knowledge of the debt and its origin, Plaintiff disputed the debt. Defendant conducted the appropriate investigation and verified the amount and the debt owed Verizon thus meeting all the requirements of both the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). In discussions with Defendant, Plaintiff along with Thomas Alston, a paralegal who is not

an attorney but reportedly is an “assistant” to Plaintiff’s counsel, reported that she was the victim of identity fraud and she had no knowledge of the debt. Plaintiff’s statement denying the knowledge and alleging identity fraud was captured in her own handwriting in a correspondence with Defendant. Defendant properly noted that the account was in dispute. Plaintiff, along with Thomas Alston, drafted the complaint and conducted several conversations with various Defendants regarding the debt. Plaintiff also filed suit against nine other defendants who eventually settled their claims with Plaintiff or were otherwise dismissed. Defendant Trident vigorously defended their claim. At deposition, Plaintiff was represented by her counsel. At deposition Plaintiff admitted that the debt was her daughter’s and

her daughter used Plaintiff’s name with her permission and defaulted. Plaintiff at deposition also testified that she did not know whether the amount due or the credit reporting was accurate. Even after this admission in deposition, Plaintiff and her counsel continued litigating this claim. Plaintiff in opposing summary judgment changed her story again and denied her signature on the letter to Defendant and disavowed her knowledge of identity theft. ECF No. 137-1. Plaintiff’s counsel in his declaration denied knowledge of the false identity theft report until the time of deposition. As stated previously, these facts are detailed in the Memorandum Opinion with all the proper references in support. ANALYSIS Standard of Review

Both the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1861, et seq., and the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., provide for the sanction of attorney’s fees when the non-prevailing party has acted in bad faith. “The term ‘bad faith,’ as it is ordinarily used in the attorney’s fee context, requires a showing either that the party subjectively acted in bad faith—knowing that [s]he had no viable claim—or that [s]he filed an action or paper that was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Alston v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., GJH-15-3100, 2018 WL 4538538 (D.Md. Sept. 20, 2018) (quoting Ryan v. Trans Union Corp., No. 99 C 216, 2001 WL 185182 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 26, 2001)); see also Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). In considering whether a filing is made in bad faith, the court will focus on the party’s mental state at the time of the filing, regardless of whether the filing turned out to be baseless. Letren v. Trans Union, LLC., PX-15- 3361, 2017 WL 4098743, at *1, n. 1 (D.Md. Sept. 15, 2017). In considering a fee award, the Court must consider the twelve factors that the Fourth Circuit set forth in Barber v. Kimbrell’s Inc., 577 F.2d 216 (4th Cir. 1978), to the extent that such factors are applicable. Letren, 2017 WL 4098743, at *8. These factors include: (1) the time and labor expended; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; (3) the skill required to properly perform the legal services rendered; (4) the attorney’s opportunity costs in pressing the instant litigation; (5) the customary fees for like work; (6) the attorney’s expectation at the outset of the litigation; (7) the time limitations imposed by the client or circumstances; (8) the amount in controversy and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation and ability of the attorney; (10) the undesirability of the case within the legal community in which the suit arose; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship between attorney and client; and (12) attorneys’ fees awards in similar cases.

Barber, 577 F.2d at 226 n.28. In this District, Appendix B of the Local Rules of the District of Maryland established the rules and guidelines for determining attorney’s fees in cases such as this. Discussion

The FCRA and the FDCPA are both designed to protect consumers. The FCRA was enacted to “protect consumer privacy,” among other things. United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6, 7 (2012) (first quoting Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 52 (2007), then citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681). Specifically, the FCRA’s purpose is “to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce . . . which is fair and equitable to the consumer.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b). Similarly, the FDCPA was enacted “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices, to ensure that debt collectors who abstain from such practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistent state action to protect consumers.” Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573, 577 (2010) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)). Both statutes provide civil remedies that enable consumers to hold credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”) and debt collectors accountable for violations of the Acts. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n–81o, 1692k. Many cases in which plaintiffs bring actions against CRAs and debt collectors under the FCRA and FDCPA are based on genuine violations of the law that can greatly harm

consumers. In those cases, the FCRA and FDCPA provide essential relief for unfairly treated consumer plaintiffs. In this case, Plaintiff Miller is not one of the unfairly treated consumers. As the Court noted in its Memorandum Opinion, there are many troubling aspects to this litigation. When you peel the onion of this case, at its center is a Plaintiff litigant, who happens to be a tenant in a property owned or operated by Thomas Alston. Thomas Alston is no stranger to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, as noted below. Plaintiff, with or without her daughter, owed a debt to Verizon in the reported amount of $190. Plaintiff falsely alleged, in her own handwriting, that she was a victim of identity fraud. When you set back the clock in this case, the entire claim of Plaintiff aided by Alston rests on fraud. Plaintiff under oath at deposition admitted that the debt was hers, there was no identity fraud, and that she didn’t know whether the amount of the debt was accurate or accurately reported, which completely undermined her claim. As this Court stated previously, Plaintiff’s fraud is inextricably intertwined with her cause of action. In her Response, Plaintiff argues that she never asserted an identity fraud claim against Defendant. ECF No. 160. While that is technically true, Plaintiff ignores the obvious: that

the claims she did assert were all based upon her fraudulent assertions that she was unaware of the debt and that it was a result of identity fraud. Applying a basic “but for” analysis—but for her fraudulent claim that the debt was not hers—this Defendant would never have found itself wrapped up in this litigation. The troubling aspects of this case do not stop with Plaintiff’s fraud upon this Court, a fraud that resulted in settlement of other claims against some Defendants and dismissals against other Defendants. It seems that Thomas Alston, the paralegal who admitted he assisted Plaintiff in her efforts, has possibly run out of relatives. As Judge Hazel of this Court noted, “the Alston family is engaged in, and profiting from, ‘an enterprise of [FCRA] litigation.’” Alston v. Branch Banking

and Trust Co., 2018 WL 4538538, at *3 (quoting Alston v. Creditors Interchange Receivable Mgmt., LLC, DKC-12-1709, 2012 WL 4370124, at *1). As Judge Chasanow also highlighted, “Thomas Alston has filed a number of FCRA cases in this Court, along with ‘numerous, additional and virtually identical cases, filed by persons who appear to be Mr. Alston’s mother, Yvonne Alston, sister, Candace Alston, sister Kimberly Alston, and brother, Jonathan Alston, all of whom use the identical address utilized by Thomas Alston.’” Id. (citing Alston v. Creditor’s Interchange, 2012 WL 4370124, at *3). In the instant case, Plaintiff is not a relative but reportedly a tenant of Mr. Alston. As Judge Messitte of this Court wrote, “but there is more.” Alston v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., PJM-15-3558, 2016 WL 4555056, at *7 (D.Md. Aug. 31, 2016). The fact that Plaintiff’s surname is “Alston” gives the Court considerable pause. An extraordinary number of FCRA cases have been filed in this Court by allegedly pro se “Alston” plaintiffs.

Thomas Alston, a non-attorney, has not only been among the named pro se plaintiffs but appears as well to have been the author-in-fact of several of these pro se Alston-Plaintiff suits, as well as other suits, ostensibly filed by pro se plaintiffs seeking monetary compensation for trivial harms, such as the alleged failure to promptly receive a mortgage note marked “paid” when it has been paid in full.

Id. at *7—8. Like in Judge Messitte’s opinion, the Court here takes judicial notice of Thomas Alston’s LinkedIn profile (which is still currently active), in which he holds out: For the cost of a reasonably priced paralegal, you get the value of a high-caliber attorney. Armed with a thorough understanding of the judicial system, great legal vision, specialized research skill, competitive spirit and writing and communication skills to convey the foregoing, there is no legal task that I cannot accomplish with the utmost competency. Extensive experience in drafting complaints, supporting and opposing briefs, discovery documents and more. I have over 10 favorable court opinions from the US District Court for Maryland and Circuit Court for Prince George's County to back up my proclaimed competencies.

Thomas Alston, LINKEDIN (Dec. 3, 2019, 5:02 PM), https://www.linkedin.com/in/doctormoney. In another Alston opinion, Judge Messitte repeated his concerns over the Alston cases and later noted that over forty1 other lawsuits were brought by Alstons, who all allegedly lived at the same Cedarhollow Lane address. Alston v. Orion Portfolio Services, LLC, PJM-16-3697, 2017 WL 784122, at *1 n.1 (D.Md. Mar 1, 2017). In that case, Plaintiff Jonathan Alston failed to appear at the pretrial conference on September 20, 2018. Thomas Alston appeared on his behalf and was questioned by the Court regarding his relationship to not only that case but other Alston inspired litigation. Thomas Alston refused to answer any inquiries under oath. Alston was very evasive and

1 The number of lawsuits now exceed sixty-five, as evidenced infra, note 3. refused to answer the Court’s questions and failed to remember even the simplest matters. See PJM-16-3697, ECF No. 74. At the end of the Court’s inquiry, Judge Messitte stated: Maybe we’ll instruct Mr. Jonathan Alston and Mr. Thomas Alston about what they need to do when the crunch comes. Because, apparently, they’ve been successful in extorting—and I use that word very carefully—settlements from companies that don’t want to go to trial. Now the time has come for them to see what you have to do when you really file these suits, what, really it means.

Id. at 29.

The troubles don’t stop there. Plaintiff’s counsel admits that Thomas Alston is “an assistant to Plaintiff’s counsel.” ECF No. 160 at 8. This Court has the authority to assess attorney’s fees against Plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3) and 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(c) and against Plaintiff’s counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. This Court also has the inherent authority to order sanctions in the form of attorney’s fees when a party has acted in bad faith. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 31 (1991). Rule 11 also allows for sanctions, and notably here, “a law firm must be held jointly responsible for a violation committed by its partner, associate, or employee.” FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(1). Rule 11 also allows for reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses to be assessed as a sanction. FED. R. CIV. P. 11(c)(4). There has been extensive litigation in this case over nothing more than an actual and properly reported $190 debt that could have been settled with Defendant for one half that amount. Instead, the Plaintiff opportunist with help from Thomas Alston and/or her counsel turned this frivolous, non-existent claim into an attempt to continue the FCRA/FDCPA money making scheme. All tragedies have a third and final act. For Plaintiff and her counsel, the third act has arrived. It is unfortunate for Defendant that Defendant had to bear the litigation costs along the way. While the Court will decide this motion only as to these facts and this litigation, it would be imprudent to ignore the history concerning Thomas Alston, the paralegal who had in the past advertised, walked, and talked like a licensed member of the Bar, and who helped this Plaintiff with her negotiations with the CRAs and her filings. As in Alston v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., though Plaintiff’s complaint was originally filed pro so, “this action appears to have been drafted by an individual with some legal training.” Alston v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., GLH-15-3100, 2016 WL 4521651, at *1, n.1 (D.Md. Aug. 26, 2016). As stated above, Judge Hazel noted that “the

Alston family is engaged in, and profiting from, ‘an enterprise of [FCRA] litigation.’” Alston v. Branch Banking and Trust Co., 2018 WL 4538538, at *3 (quoting Alston v. Creditors Interchange, 2012 WL 4370124, at *1). It appears the enterprise has extended outside the family. It would also be imprudent to ignore the role of counsel in this case, who even after being faced with his client’s admission of the debt, the false reporting of identity theft, and her lack of knowledge of whether the reporting was accurate, continued to press this litigation. In a pattern that has repeated itself in other Alston filings, the failure at litigation has resulted in extensive post- summary judgment motions, styled as motions to alter or amend judgment. This post-judgment litigation resulted in even more attorney’s fees for Defendant, adding the proverbial insult to

injury. The Court’s comments are simply based upon the finding that the entire claim of Plaintiff rested upon fraud. See Memorandum Opinion at 17–21. There never was a valid claim under the FDCPA/FCRA. There never was identity theft resulting in a fraudulent debt. What did exist was a valid debt of Plaintiff’s that was properly reported to the CRAs and a Defendant charged with collection of that valid debt. To determine whether the Plaintiff acted in bad faith, the Court will focus on the party’s mental state at the time of the filing, regardless of whether the filing turned out to be baseless. Letren v. Trans Union, LLC., 2017 WL 4098743, at *1, n. 1. The Defendants successfully removed this case from Baltimore City Circuit Court (ECF 1). On October 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35). The pertinent paragraph as to this Defendant reads as follows:

On all three CRAs’ reports were a Trident collection that sought to collect an old Verizon bill in the amount of $190. Ms. Miller inquired about the legitimacy of this purported collection, but Trident did not have any details on how the $190 was calculated and Trident could not verify it legally owned or could collect on the debt. Trident claimed the debt was sold by Verizon and that its authority to collect on the debt was manifested in its reporting of the debt and the dunning letter it sent to Ms. Miller. Although Trident apprised Ms. Miller that the bill went delinquent in January 2013, Trident offered to settle the debt for 50% of the bill amount or $94.90 without disclosing that due to the debt’s old age it could not sue on the debt or enforce it in court. The Trident account was inaccurate because Ms. Miller did not owe $190 to Verizon, much less did she owe Trident any money. ECF No. 35 at 5, ¶ 19. It is clear from Plaintiff’s complaint that when she filed this Amended Complaint on October 30, 2018, Plaintiff denied knowledge of the debt completely. This paragraph 19 tracks identically paragraph 20 of the removed Complaint. The Court uses the Amended Complaint since it is later in time. The Court has previously denied Plaintiff’s relief on the merits of this claim, so the above paragraph is cited here only to evidence Plaintiff’s mental state at the time of the filing. See Memorandum Opinion. On April 16, 2019 under oath on deposition, Plaintiff admitted: (1) that she owed that money “a long time ago,” ECF No. 128-1 at 3;2 (2) that her daughter opened the account using her name with her permission, id. at 6; (3) that she did not know whether the amount of the debt was accurate, id. at 5, 8, 12–13; (4) that Thomas Alston assisted her with her credit and creditors prior to the lawsuit and prepared her for what to expect in deposition, id. at 4; (5) that Thomas Alston was with her on the phone calls to Trident, id. at 9; and (6) that her claim of identity theft she reported was “inaccurate” because the account was not opened as a result of identity theft, id.at

2 The Court cites to the page numbers generated by the CM/ECF filing system. 10. The Court further notes that her allegations of violations committed by Defendant under the FCRA and FDCPA were found to be baseless as set forth in this Court’s Memorandum Opinion. It is also remarkable that during discovery, Plaintiff requested the Court order Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness to travel to Washington D.C. for deposition. ECF No. 96. The Court heard argument from counsel and considered submitted legal support. The Court ruled against Plaintiff

and held that the deposition of the 30(b)(6) witness would occur in Georgia, the principal place of business of the witness. ECF No. 97. Plaintiff abandoned the deposition of this critical witness. Failure to depose the 30(b)(6) witness indicates to the Court that either finances were an issue or Plaintiff never intended to proceed to trial in this case. Since a tremendous amount of litigation and costs had already been incurred by Plaintiff, the latter seems more likely than not. Plaintiff had also reached settlement or dismissal with all the other Defendants in this case. I must now determine whether Plaintiff and/or her counsel have acted in bad faith. As stated previously, “[t]he term ‘bad faith,’ as it is ordinarily used in the attorney’s fee context, requires a showing either that the party subjectively acted in bad faith—knowing that [s]he had no

viable claim—or that [s]he filed an action or paper that was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.” Alston v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 2018 WL 4538538, at *3 (citing Ryan, 2001 WL 185182, at *5). Here the evidence is clear that Plaintiff acted in bad faith. Plaintiff’s state of mind is clearly discernible. She knew the debt was hers, she filed a false claim of identity theft, and she could not say the amount was not correct or was improperly reported. As I stated in the Memorandum Opinion, Plaintiff never had a valid claim. Plaintiff had knowledge of the debt she incurred with her daughter’s default, and Defendant met all its obligations under the FCRA and FDCPA. It appears to be evident to the Court that Plaintiff, along with Thomas Alston—who was an employee “assistant” to counsel—filed these multiple claims against the Defendants in an effort to extract settlements in the same way Thomas Alston and family members had done in the prior cases filed in this Court. The allegations against Defendant were an act of opportunity and had no basis in fact. The action here was “frivolous, unreasonable, [and] without foundation.” Id. The fraud was so intermingled with her claims against Defendant that the sanction of attorney’s fees is warranted

against Plaintiff and against her counsel, who is responsible for Thomas Alston under Rule 11. The Court will consider the responsibility of each individually. The Court does not take lightly an award of sanctions, nor should it. In this case, over what amounted to an acknowledged $190 properly reported debt, resolvable by an offered $95 payment, the Thomas Alston machine cranked out a litigation effort that has cost Defendant significant attorney’s fees. The claim was fraudulent from its inception – when Plaintiff and Alston contacted Defendant by phone regarding the debt, Plaintiff knew she owed the debt and knew why. The claims that followed were just an opportunity to use that fraudulent vehicle to squeeze a settlement from Defendant. The Alston machine was not prepared for litigation and the strong defense

asserted by Defendant. After all, nine other defendants in this action either settled or were dismissed. There is a striking resemblance of pleadings and strategies throughout all the Alston filings. Some of the prior Alston cases were pro se but the pleadings are all similar. As other Judges of this Court have noted, those pro se pleadings appear to be drafted by someone with legal experience. This Court has conducted an analysis of cases filed by Thomas Alston as Plaintiff and related pro se cases that involve Thomas Alston and pleadings that appear to be drafted and filed by Thomas Alston and the Alston machinery.3 This analysis includes some cases in which Jeffrey Styles, Esquire entered an appearance. What is consistent with these filings, and what other Judges of this Court have noted, is that the pleadings are all very similar with the exception of the factual statements. No case has ever proceeded to trial. When the Plaintiff, either Alston or a relative giving the same address, received an unfavorable decision in either a Motion to Dismiss or Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiff in many cases filed motions to alter or amend the judgment (motions for reconsideration) with the Court. Those motions have almost always been denied.

Throughout these cases, Judges have stated repeatedly that Alston coordinates a machinery designed to wring settlements out of defendants with nothing more than “nuisance suit[s].” Alston v. Orion Portfolio Servs., LLC, PJM-16-3697, 2019 WL 2450974, at *5 (D.Md. June 11, 2019). As some of these cases indicate, attorney’s fees have been awarded. The attached analysis of cases shows the pattern for Alston. Jeffrey Styles, Esquire entered an appearance in some of the later cases analyzed below. With the exception of a few recent cases filed by Mr. Styles, he did not enter an appearance until the litigation was underway. In the present case, Mr. Styles did not enter an appearance until the first Motion for Reconsideration was filed. I have included the analysis as part of this Opinion. It

serves as insight to the state of mind of Alston at the time of the filing of this complaint. Here Alston’s and counsel Jeffrey Styles’ state of mind is clearly discernible as well. Alston capitalized on a frivolous claim to pressure settlement from Defendant. The activity in this case is consistent with the activity in the other cases filed by Alston, Alston’s family members, and other pro se Plaintiffs with Alston’s help. Plaintiff Miller is just another opportunity to attempt a settlement from this Defendant in a frivolous and admittedly fraudulent claim. Plaintiff’s complaint, removed to this Court on August 17, 2018, was filed pro se. The Amended Complaint was also filed pro se on October 30, 2018. ECF No. 35. Both appear to be drafted by someone with legal experience. Plaintiff testified Alston helped her in the beginning of this case. ECF No. 128-1 at 4. The pleadings are identical to prior Alston filings. Mr. Styles did not enter his appearance until the Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 48) was filed on December 12, 2018. So, the question for the Court is when did Alston or Styles know of the fraudulent nature of Plaintiff’s claim. While the Court may never know the true answer, it is indisputable that counsel

knew at the time of Plaintiff’s deposition. In answering this question, the Court looks to the Declaration of Thomas Alston (ECF No. 160-2) and the Declaration of Jeffrey Styles (ECF No. 160-5) filed in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Sanctions. At the latest, by the evidence before the Court, Alston and Styles knew of the fraud and the frivolous claim at the time of Plaintiff’s deposition when she admitted to it, thus evidencing their state of mind. Mr. Styles stated he did not become aware of the identity theft dispute until the deposition on April 16, 2019, ECF No. 160-5 at 1, and Thomas Alston, his paralegal, attended the deposition with Plaintiff even though he was asked to leave the room. Alston stated he assisted Plaintiff with her credit report and drafting of a dispute letter. ECF No. 160-2 at 3. This was before Styles was retained by Plaintiff

in December 2018. ECF No. 160-5 at 1. Once again, the issue of Alston providing unlicensed legal services arises by his own admissions. ECF 160-2 at 3 (“I assisted [Plaintiff] in the drafting a dispute letter to Equifax.”). From his own declaration, he was providing legal advice to Plaintiff before he introduced Plaintiff to Jeffrey Styles. See id. Thomas Alston provided a deposition in another case on September 5, 2018. See Best v. Federal National Mortgage Assoc., GJH-17-314, ECF No. 60-4. In his deposition he was asked about his employment relationship in general. Id. at 6. He described his employment as “contract work” for which he did not receive a W-2. Id. at 6–7. When asked about his participation in the preparation of documents and the legal preparation of the Best case, Alston was very vague and 13 stated he could not remember if he prepared certain documents and whether he provided templates to the Plaintiff in that case. Id. at 9–10. In fact, Alston appeared to be vague and evasive in almost all his responses. In the Best case, he denied being an employee of and receiving a W-2 from Mr. Styles, but stated he was more of an “independent contractor” with him. Id. at 7. The Court understands that Alston’s role in the Best case is not dispositive of his role here, but we have the

declarations of Alston and Styles in this case that clearly state Alston was acting as a paralegal for Jeffrey Styles. While we cannot determine exactly when that relationship began, we know for sure that Alston was acting in that capacity before December 2018 and well before the time of Plaintiff’s deposition. From his own admissions and Plaintiff’s deposition, Alston was providing unlicensed legal advice and support to Plaintiff which predates the Complaint. See ECF Nos. 128-1, 160-2. In their Declarations, Alston and Styles state they were unaware Plaintiff had falsely claimed she was a victim of identity theft and were unaware of the frivolous nature of the claim prior to the deposition. However, despite being confronted with the fraudulent and frivolous claim and Plaintiff’s admission that she had in fact incurred the debt and that she could not say whether

it was accurate or accurately reported in order to sustain her complaint, counsel decided to press on with this litigation. Therefore, the Court finds that Jeffrey Styles, who is responsible for paralegal “assistant” Thomas Alston as well, shall pay attorney’s fees incurred after the April 16, 2019, deposition of Plaintiff and until this litigation has concluded. Md. Rule 19-305.3. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for sanctions and awards attorney’s fees to Defendant to be paid by Plaintiff Denise Miller.

14 The Court further GRANTS the motion for sanctions and awards attorney’s fees to Defendant to be paid by Jeffrey Styles, Esquire, jointly and severally with Plaintiff Miller, incurred from April 17, 2019 until this litigation concludes. The Court ORDERS Defendant to submit a fee petition of reasonable attorney’s fees consistent with this Court’s Opinion and in compliance with Appendix B of the Local Rules of the

District Court of Maryland for consideration by this Court within 14 days of this opinion. A separate ORDER will follow.

Date: December 4, 2019 /s/ A. David Copperthite United States Magistrate Judge

3 Analysis of cases related to Thomas Alston and/or Jeffrey Styles, Esquire. The Court is aware this is not a complete list of all the Alston cases. The information in this analysis was last updated on December 4, 2019. Case If/When Frivolity/ Number & Defendants Result Styles Sanctions Plaintiff Enters RWT-11- Creditors Closed 10/12/12; No In ALL cases that 2292 Interchange Part of consolidated list were part of Thomas Receivable dismissed for failure to pay consolidated Alston Management, filing fees; dismissal for LLC; Experian Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended failure to pay fees, Complaint dismissed with Judge Chasanow (Creditors prejudice b/c Defendants noted, “It is Interchange never responded apparent from the paid Alston pattern of cases $1,000) described above . . . that Mr. Alston and his family are engaged in an enterprise of 15

[FCRA] litigation and are profiting from it.” DKC Order mandated Thomas and Kimberly Alston pay costs in all consolidated cases. JFM-11- FIA Card Closed 08/06/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 3722 Services N.A. Part of consolidated list Thomas dismissed for failure to pay Alston filing fees; (Alston -Settled, order of dismissal received $500) (ECF No. 13) RWT-12- Experian Closed 05/17/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 670 Information Part of consolidated list Thomas Solutions, Inc. dismissed for failure to pay Alston fees; -Settled, order of dismissal (ECF No. 11) RWT-12- Trans Union Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 721 LLC; Part of consolidated list Thomas Solutions, Inc. dismissed for failure to pay Alston (not served fees; before -Settled, order of dismissal dismissal) (ECF No. 14) (Trans Union paid $7,500) JFM-12- Monarch Closed 07/16/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 1512 Bank; Part of consolidated list Candace Deborah W. dismissed for failure to pay Alston Lane; Amy fees; McCarthy -TRANSFERRED to E.D.Va. (ECF Nos. 11, 12, & 13) AW-12- NCO Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 1708 Financial Part of consolidated list Thomas Systems, Inc. dismissed for failure to pay Alston fees; (No other proceedings before consolidated dismissal w/ prejudice) 16

DKC-12- Portfolio Closed 09/10/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 1709 Recovery Part of consolidated list Kimberly Associates dismissed for failure to pay Ann Alston fees; -Settled, order of dismissal (ECF No. 11) AW-12- Transworld Closed 06/29/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 1815 Systems Inc. Part of consolidated list Johnathan dismissed for failure to pay Alston fees; -Settled, order of dismissal (ECF No. 9) AW-12- Bank of Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 1819 America, N.A. Part of consolidated list Thomas dismissed for failure to pay Alston fees; (No other proceedings before consolidated dismissal w/ prejudice) JFM-2001 Wells Fargo Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 Thomas Bank, N.A. Part of consolidated list Alston dismissed for failure to pay fees; (No other proceedings before consolidated dismissal w/ prejudice) PJM-12- United Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 2063 Collection Part of consolidated list Kimberly Bureau, Inc. dismissed for failure to pay Ann Alston fees; (Def. didn’t have chance to answer before dismissal) AW-12- Professional Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 2064 Account Part of consolidated list Thomas Management, dismissed for failure to pay Alston LLC fees; (Def didn’t have chance to answer before dismissal) AW-12- Cavalry Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 2065 Portfolio Part of consolidated list Thomas Services, LLC; dismissed for failure to pay Alston Robertino fees; Gooding (No other proceedings before consolidated dismissal w/ prejudice) 17

PJM-12- First Premier, Closed 03/07/2013 No See RWT-11-2292 2244 Inc. Part of consolidated list for Candace failure to pay fees, but NOT Alston dismissed; Def. filed MSJ, followed by a Stipulation of Dismissal 8 days later; order dismissing (ECF No. 19) PJM-12- Hartford Closed 12/19/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 2270 Financial Part of consolidated list Yvonne Services, Inc. dismissed for failure to pay Alston fees, but not yet closed; -Stipulation of Dismissal with plaintiff receiving no payment from Def. (ECF No. 15) (granted ECF No. 16) RWT-12- GE Capital Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 2533 Bank; JC Part of consolidated list Kimberly Penney Corp., dismissed for failure to pay Ann Alston Inc. fees; (neither Def. Summons not yet served served) when case dismissed RWT-12- ER Solutions, Closed 10/11/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 2542 Inc. Part of consolidated list Thomas dismissed for failure to pay Alston fees; **Judge Titus ORDERED Alston to file response under seal of all settlements he previously received from other cases so far, which he did file DKC-12- Central Credit Closed 08/26/2013 No See RWT-11-2292 2711 Services Inc. Part of consolidated list Yvonne dismissed for failure to pay Alston fees, but not closed on these grounds; -SJ entered in favor of Defendant (ECF Nos. 21 & 22) -no motion for reconsideration/ amend judgment 18

RWT-12- HSBC Card Closed 11/05/2012 No See RWT-11-2292 2732 Services, Inc. Part of consolidated list Candace dismissed for failure to pay Alston fees; -HSBC filed stipulation of dismissal—unclear if there was a settlement -dismissal granted (ECF No. 17) DKC-12- LHR, Inc. Closed 03/01/2013 No No 3294 -Settled, order dismissing Thomas (ECF No. 12) Alston AW-12- Discover Closed 10/25/2013 No, but No 3357 Financial -Settled in settlement attorney Candace Services conference with Judge Day, Shikha Alston order dismissing (ECF No. Parikh 29) entered appearance in ECF No. 13, after Def. filed answer and a scheduling order was set AW-12- Cavalry Closed 08/21/2013 No No, but Judge 3589 Portfolio -ECF Nos. 15 & 16: noted Alston’s Thomas Services, LLC; granting Cavalry’s MTD in prior findings and Alston Capital part with leave to amend DKC’s Order in Management -ECF Nos. 41 & 42: his Mem. Op. re Services, LP; granting Capital First MTD Accounts Management’s MTD Receivable Alston’s Second Amended Management, Complaint Inc. -ECF No. 35: Alston’s voluntary dismissal of Accounts Receivable Management (never served) -Cavalry filed stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 39)— AW-12- Wells Fargo Closed 11/21/2013 No No 3671 Bank, N.A. -Def filed MTD (ECF No. 8), and Alston filed a 19

Thomas Motion for Sanctions against Alston Def b/c Def filed MTD (ECF No. 13) (denied ECF No. 20) -MTD granted in part (ECF No. 17 & 18) -Alston filed partial MSJ (ECF No. 32) (denied ECF No. 43 & 44) -Alston filed Motion to Correct/ Amend denial of SJ (ECF No. 47) (denied ECF No. 52) -Alston filed Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 51)— AW-12- Wells Fargo -dismissed for being No No 3745 Bank, N.A. duplicate case (of 12-3671) Thomas Alston DKC-13- United Closed 03/04/2014 No No 913 Collection -MTD (ECF No. 10), Alston Johnathan Bureau, Inc. filed Amended Complaint Alston two weeks later (ECF No. 14); Def. filed another MTD (ECF No. 16) -filed for leave to file Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 23) (denied ECF No. 27) -MTD granted, judgment entered against J.Alston (ECF No. 26&27) -Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 28) (denied ECF No. 31) -Alston appealed to Fourth Circuit, which affirmed D.Md. RWT-13- Palisades Closed 07/02/2013 No No 1012 Collection, -Alston filed partial MSJ Yvonne L.L.C. (ECF No. 15) Alston -Def filed notice of settlement (ECF No. 16) five days later (granted) 20

PWG-13- Northstar Closed 05/14/2013 No No 1218 Location -Alston filed notice of Yvonne Services, LLC settlement (ECF No. 11) less Alston than one month after case removed PWG-13- HSBC Card Closed 05/22/2013 No No 1226 Services, Inc.; -Alston and Defs entered Thomas Capital One joint stipulation to extend Alston Bank, N.A. time to respond to complaint (ECF No. 7), which was denied (ECF No. 8) -Defendants filed notice of settlement (ECF No. 12) less than one month after case removed PWG-13- Equifax Closed 11/27/2013 No, but No 1232 Information -Alston filed stipulation of attorney Thomas Services, LLC dismissal; actual document Scott C. Alston is joint statement of Borison settlement (ECF No. 19) entered —note: does not appear appearance that parties actually had after case settlement conference had been referred for settlement PJM-13- ER Solutions, Closed 10/04/2013 No No 1598 Inc. -Alston filed Mot to Strike Thomas affirmative defenses (ECF Alston No. 11), and Def subsequently filed amended Answer (ECF No. 16) -Defendants filed notice of settlement after some discovery had been completed (ECF No. 20) RWT-13- RJM Closed 12/19/2013 No No 1704 Acquisitions -Alston and JCS filed joint Thomas LLC; motion to stay pending Alston Plaza settlement (ECF No. 20); Recovery, Inc. Alston voluntarily dismissed (term (ECF No. 32) 8/16/13); -Alston filed Motion to Jefferson Strike affirmative defenses Capital by BCR (ECF No. 22), and Systems, Inc. BCR filed notice of 21

(term settlement ~2 weeks later 9/27/13); (ECF No. 25) Bureau of -Alston filed voluntary Collection dismissal as to Plaza (ECF Recovery No. 23) (term 9/27/13) -Alston filed Motion to Strike affirmative defenses as to RJM (ECF No. 31), and RJM filed amended Answer (ECF No. 36); RJM filed notice of settlement (ECF No. 38) DKC-13- LVNV Closed 7/23/2014 No No 2388 Funding, LLC -TU filed answer (ECF No. Yvonne (term 13), and Alston filed Motion Alston 10/22/13); to Strike affirmative Equifax defenses (ECF No. 18); TU Information filed motion in opp. (ECF Services, LLC; No. 20), to which Alston Experian replied (ECF No. 26). J. Information Chasanow granted in part Solutions, Inc. and denied in part Alston’s (term 2/5/14); motion (ECF No. 32). TU Trans Union filed stipulation of dismissal LLC (term stating matters had been 1/7/14) settled (ECF 35) (granted ECF No. 36) -LVNV filed answer (ECF No. 14), and Alston filed Motion to Strike affirmative defenses (ECF No. 17); LVNV filed stipulation of dismissal stating Alston dismissed claims against it (ECF no. 27) (granted ECF No. 28) -Experian filed answer (ECF No. 25); filed line of settlement (ECF No. 37), and Experian filed stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 39) -Equifax filed answer (ECF No. 30), Alston and Equifax filed joint status report 22

stating they settled (ECF No. 40) and stipulated dismissal (ECF No. 43) (granted ECF No. 44) DKC-13- Equifax Closed 12/19/2013 No No 2390 Information -TU filed answer (ECF No. Johnathan Services, LLC; 12), and then a stipulation of Alston Experian dismissal, which did not say Information whether there was Solutions settlement (ECF No. 15) (term (granted ECF No. 16) 10/16/13); -Experian dismissed via Trans Union settlement order (ECF No. LLC (term 19) and stipulation of 9/13/13) dismissal (ECF No. 21) (granted ECF No. 22) -Alston filed Notice of Settlement with Equifax (ECF No. 23) TDC-13- RBS Citizens, Closed 8/14/2014 No No 2675 N.A. (Citizens -RBS filed answer (ECF No. Yvonne Bank) 8), and Alston filed Motion Alston to Strike affirmative defenses (ECF No. 14); court issued letter order memorializing call saying RBS had 14 days to oppose (ECF no. 15) -Joint stipulation of dismissal - Alston voluntarily dismisses (ECF No. 19) RWT-14- Virginia Closed 5/6/2014 No No 656 Heritage Bank -No answer, VHB filed Candace stipulation of dismissal less Alston than two months after case filed (ECF No. 9) (granted ECF No. 10) PWG-14- Chase Bank Closed 3/6/2015 No No 2987 USA, N.A.; -Chase filed answer (ECF Yvonne Bank of No. 9); BOA filed answer Alston America, N.A. (ECF No. 10) — no motions to strike filed -Order staying proceedings pending expedited 23

settlement conference (ECF No. 18) -parties settled before settlement conference (see ECF No. 23) DKC-14- Citibank, N.A. Closed 7/9/2015 No No 3199 -Citibank filed MTD (ECF Thomas No. 11), which J. Chasanow Alston: granted in part and denied in class action part (ECF Nos. 16, 17) plaintiff -Alston filed notice of voluntary dismissal (ECF No. 22) TDC-15- Equifax Closed 2/25/2016 No No 3099 Information -TU filed answer (ECF No. Thomas Services, LLC 18), and then another answer Alston & (term to amended complaint (ECF Johnathan 2/9/2016); No. 44) Alston: Experian -Experian and Lexis filed class action Information MTDs (ECF Nos. 30, 31), plaintiffs Solutions, Inc. and Alstons filed amended (term complaint (ECF No. 39-2). 1/29/16); Lexis filed notice of intent Transunion, to file a MTD as to LLC (term Amended Complaint (ECF 2/18/16); No. 47) LexisNexis -Experian and Alstons Risk settled (see ECF Nos. 46, Solutions, Inc. 58) -Equifax filed joint motion for settlement (ECF No. 51) (granted ECF No. 53) -TU filed stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 55) (granted (ECF No. 56) -Lexis filed joint motion for settlement (ECF No. 57) (grantedECF No. 60) GJH-15- Branch ON APPEAL for Atty’s No -TU filed Motion 3100 Banking & Fees for Atty’s Fees Yvonne Trust Co. -TU and BB&T filed MTDs Judge (ECF No. 80) Alston (term (ECF Nos. 18, 22), and Hazel’s because “serial 4/20/17); Alston filed Amended first Mem. filer” Alston Equifax Complaint (ECF No. 27) Op. (ECF “knowingly filed a Information No. 50) lawsuit that was 24

Services, LLC - Equifax and TU filed notes in the frivolous, (term 4/7/17); Answers to amended introductio unreasonable, Experian complaint (ECF Nos. 29, 30) n that while without Information -Experian and BB&T filed Alston was foundation and Solutions, Inc. MTDs amended complaint “ostensibly devoid of (term (ECF Nos. 31, 32) proceeding evidentiary 9/21/16); -TU filed Motion for pro se,” her support,” among TransUnion, Judgment on Pleadings filings other similar LLC; (ECF No. 44), which Alston “appear to reasons. Midland opposed and filed for costs have been -In Mem. Op. Credit (ECF No. 47) drafted by granting motion in Management -ORDER: (1) Experian’s someone part and awarding Inc. (term MTD granted, (2) granting with some fees (ECF No. 89), 9/19/16— in part and denying in part legal Judge Hazel never served) BB&T’s MTD, (3) granting training, “recognizes that in part and denying in part and her Alston is not a TU’s MJOP, (4) allowing claims are normal pro se Alston to file Second similar to litigant proceeding Amended Complaint (ECF multiple without assistance Nos. 50, 51) other cases of counsel,” but **Court issued discovery that have does not find order (ECF No. 62), which been filed Alston brought Alston did not follow, and in this action against TU she did not participate in Court by in bad faith. Judge discovery Plaintiff also noted in -Alston filed Motion to and other referencing other Alter/Amend Order (ECF members of Alston cases that No. 67), which was denied her family.” “the Court will not (ECF Nos. 77, 78) be so obtuse as to -Equifax filed notice of assume that settlement (ECF No. 68) Alston, or -TU filed MSJ (ECF No. whoever drafter 71), which was granted her action herein, (ECF Nos. 77, 78) was not also -BB&T filed stipulation of involved in these dismissal (ECF No. 76) actions.” -TU filed Costs and Motion -J. Hazel did find for Atty’s Fees (ECF Nos. that Alston’s 79, 80); Court awarded fees response to TU’s (ECF No. 89) MSJ was filed in -Alston filed motion to bad faith, and Alter/Amend award of fees awarded TU fees (ECF no. 90), which was related to the bad denied (ECF No. 95). faith filings 25

Plaintiff appealed (ECF No. 96) DKC-15- Equifax Closed 2/9/16 No No 3393 Information -Equifax filed MTD and Thomas Services, LLC Motion to Strike Class Alston; allegations b/c pro se Johnathan (also filed plaintiffs can’t maintain Alston (term against class actions (ECF No. 8) 1/14/16) LexisNexis, -Alston filed Amended Transunion, Complaint (ECF No. 16) and Experian, -Equifax filed joint motion but these for settlement (ECF No. 19) defendants were not served and terminated 1/14/16) JFM-15- Equifax Closed 2/8/2018 Quinn No 3394 Information -Equifax filed MTD (ECF Breece Candace Services, LLC; No. 8), and Alston filed Lobato Alston Trans Union, Amended Complaint (ECF entered LLC (term No. 11) appearance 1/10/17); -Monarch filed Answer on 3/2/16 Dovenmuehle (ECF No. 18) (ECF No. Mortgage, Inc. -Equifax and DMI filed 46) (term 1/10/17; MTDs (ECF Nos. 15, 22) Monarch Bank -Alston opposed Equifax’s (term MTD and filed an MSJ as to 1/10/2017) Equifax (ECF No. 17), which Alston also opposed DMI’s (case MTD and filed an MSJ as to consolidated DMI (ECF No. 29), which with TDC-16- was denied (ECF No. 30) 608) -Alston filed another Amended Complaint (ECF No. 53) -Equifax and TU filed joint MTD (ECF No. 63), and DMI and Monarch filed joint MTD (ECF No. 65) -Court granted both MTDs as to everyone except Equifax (ECF Nos. 74, 75) 26

and entered judgment against Alston -Equifax filed Answer (ECF No. 77) -Alston filed Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 78), but then filed Motion to Withdraw (ECF No. 82) -Alston filed notice of voluntary dismissal as to Equifax (ECF No. 87) PJM-15- Experian Closed 2/6/2017 No No 3558 Information -TU, Equifax, and W&F Troy Alston Solutions, filed Answers (ECF Nos. 13, Inc.; 15, 24), but Experian filed Equifax an MTD (ECF No. 25), and Information Alston filed an Amended Services LLC Complaint (ECF No. 27) (term -Equifax and W&F filed 11/22/16); Answers to Amended Trans Union Complaint (ECF Nos. 30, LLC; 34) Willams & - TU and Experian filed Fudge, Inc. MTDs the amended (term complaint (ECF Nos. 32, 9/15/16); 37), which the Court granted George Mason (ECF Nos. 57, 58) University -GMU filed MTD for lack (term 8/31/16) of jurisdiction (ECF Nos. 51, 52), which was granted (ECF No. 58) -Alston filed a Motion for Leave to file Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 65), and Motion to Alter or Amend judgment (ECF No. 66) -Alston filed stipulation of dismissal as to W&F (ECF No. 63) -Alston filed stipulation of dismissal as to Equifax (ECF No. 75) -TU filed notice of settlement (ECF No. 78) 27

-Experian filed stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 82) RWT-15- AOL Inc. Closed 12/22/2015 No No 3592 -No responsive pleadings Thomas before AOL filed Stipulation Alston of Dismissal (ECF No. 14) PJM-16-04 Wells Fargo Closed 8/5/2016 No No Thomas Bank, N.A.; -WF and Capital One both Alston Capital One, filed MTDs (ECF Nos. 14, N.A. (term 25) 6/24/16) -Capital One filed joint stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 31) -Alston opposed WF’s MTD and filed MSJ (ECF No. 21) -Court converted WF’s MTD to a cross-MSJ, and granted SJ in favor of WF (ECF Nos. 33, 34) *Alston did NOT move to alter/amend or appeal (but court did not impose fees) GJH-16-491 Bank of Closed 6/28/2017 No No Thomas America, N.A. -TU filed Answer (ECF No. Alston, (term 15), and Capital One and Candace 5/11/16); BOA filed MTDs (ECF Nos. Alston, Capital One, 18, 21) Yvonne N.A. (term -Alstons filed Amended Alston 6/28/16); Complaint (ECF No. 24) Transunion, -Thomas and Yvonne only LLC filed stipulation of dismissal as to TU (ECF No. 25) -Capital One and TU filed Answers to Amended Complaint (ECF Nos. 26, 27) -Candace filed Motion to Strike TU’s affirmative defenses (ECF No. 32), which was granted in part and denied in part (ECF Nos. 44, 45) -BOA filed notice of dismissal (ECF No. 33) 28

-Capital One filed joint stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 42) -TU filed stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 49) TDC-16- Monarch Bank Closed 1/12/2017 Attorney No 608 -Thomas dismissed from Quinn Candace action for lack of standing Breece Alston; (ECF No. 26) Lobato Thomas -case was consolidated with entered Alston (term [JFM]-15-3394 appearance 7/29/16) (ECF No. 21) on behalf of Candace PJM-16- Orion *Open No -in first Mem. Op., 3697 Portfolio -Orion and Trident filed Judge Messitte Johnathan Services, LLC; MTD (ECF No. 9), which wrote footnote Alston Trident Asset Court granted (ECF Nos. 15, calling Alston’s Management, 16); Alston filed Amended LinkedIn L.L.C. Complaint (ECF No. 19), advertisement into and Orion and Trident filed question and *based on a Answer (ECF No. 20) detailing Alston debt to ---When the court granted cases (ECF No. Verizon MTD, it included lengthy 15) footnote instructing Alston -granted Motion to file an affidavit that the for Atty’s fees re case was brought in good Motion to Compel faith (ECF No. 15, at 1 n.1) (ECF No. 32) -Alston filed Affidavit in -granted Motion which he states Thomas for Sanctions, does not help him with his finding “Alston pleadings, but he talks to his has clearly failed family “generally” (ECF No. to prosecute his 17-3)(see ¶ 25 in particular) case in good -Ds filed Mot. to Compel faith,” and (ECF No. 22), which was “Overall, Alston granted (ECF No. 24). Ds has displayed a then filed Mot for Atty’s pattern of total fees for MTC (ECF No. 25), disregard for the which the court also granted basic requirements (ECF No. 32) of good faith -Alston filed Objection to litigation.” (ECF grant of MTC (ECF No. 26), No. 80, June 11, and a Motion to Enforce an 2019). “Sad to 29

alleged settlement say, this appears agreement (ECF No. 28); to be little more also filed Motion to than a classic Reconsider atty’s fees (ECF nuisance suit.” No. 40) -Motion for Atty’s -Ds filed Motion for partial Fees is PENDING SJ (ECF No. 36)(Alston (ECF No. 82) Dep. at 36-2), which Alston opposed and filed a cross- MSJ (ECF No. 46). Court granted Ds MSJ with prejudice, and denied Alston’s MSJ with prejudice (ECF Nos. 50, 51)(see particularly ECF No. 50 at 7 n.3) -Court later denied Alston’s Mot. to Enforce Settlement (ECF No. 58), and Alston filed Mot. to Reconsider (ECF No. 65), which was denied (ECF No. 69) -Court sent Alston letter advising that he was potentially subject to sanctions for not responding to discovery (ECF No. 70) -Ds filed R.41(b) MTD and Mot for Sanctions (ECF No. 67), which was granted with prejudice (ECF No. 80, 81) -Ds filed Motion for Atty’s Fees and Costs (ECF No. 82) (PENDING) -Alston filed Motion for Relief from Judgment (ECF No. 88) (PENDING) GJH-16- Equifax Closed 6/14/2017 No No 3918 Information -All Defs filed Answers Thomas Services, LLC (ECF Nos. 8, 10, 16) Alston (term -TU filed stipulation of 6/14/17); dismissal (ECF No. 22) Experian -Equifax filed stipulation of Information dismissal (ECF no. 24) 30

Solutions, -Experian notified court of Inc.; settlement (ECF No. 27) Trans Union, LLC GJH-17-314 Federal *Open Styles No Dawud J. National -All Defs filed MTD (ECF entered Best Mortgage No. 14) and a Motion to appearance Association Strike Best’s motion to file after Court Alston (Fannie Mae); amended complaint (ECF set new deposed Capital One, No. 18). The MTD was deadlines (ECF No. N.A.; denied as Moot, and the for MSJs 60-4) Brock & Scott, MTS was denied (ECF Nos. and close of PLLC 31, 32) discovery -Best also filed MSJ (ECF (ECF No. No. 19), which was denied 57) as Moot (ECF Nos. 31, 32) -Court filed paperless order modifying scheduling order, and Best filed motion to reconsider (ECF No. 54) (PENDING) -Defs filed MSJ (ECF No. 60), which included depo of Thomas Alston (ECF No. 60-4) (PENDING) TDC-17- ABC Financial Closed 11/13/2017 No No 2748 Services, Inc.; -case remanded to state Thomas LMD Gyms, court after Alston filed Alston LLC; second amended complaint GBG, Inc.; removing federal claim Gold’s Gym (ECF Nos. 22, 25) International, Inc. (seemingly never served) PX-17-2866 OneMain Closed 12/14/2017 No No Thomas Financial, -OneMain filed MTD (ECF Alston LLC (term No.9), and Alston filed 10/27/17); Amended Complaint (ECF OneMain No. 16) Financial, Inc. -OneMain then filed a MTD the amended complaint (ECF No. 21) -Alston filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 31

pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (ECF No.23) CBD-17- Federal Closed 5/8/2019 Styles No 2938 National -ServiceLink filed Answer entered Thomas Mortgage (ECF No. 25), and FNMA appearance Alston; Association; and Seterus filed MTD (ECF on behalf of Curtis Ross Seterus, Inc.; No. 29), which was granted Vaughn (term ServiceLink in part and denied in part and all 11/7/17) Field Services (ECF Nos. 40, 41) Pittmans (described -Alston filed Second (ECF No. as “non- Amended Complaint as 58), after party” in directed (ECF No. 42), to case ECF No. which all Ds filed Answers referred for 40); Carey (ECF Nos. 43, 44, 45) settlement Vaughn; -case referred to Judge conference Tavaris Sullivan for settlement (ECF Pittman; No. 51) Shawanda -All parties filed stipulation Pittman; of dismissal (ECF No. 71) Bandon Pittman TDC-17- Eberwein Closed 6/17/2019 Styles No 3278 Group, LLC -Def filed MTD (ECF No. entered Tracy (Merlin Auto 9), which was denied b/c appearance Arthur Club); Def didn’t file notice of (ECF No. Alston John Lund intent to file motion first 51) after Keller (ECF No. 14) Alston was -Def filed second MTD instructed (ECF No. 30), which was to show granted in part and denied in cause for part (ECF Nos. 38, 39) absence -Alston filed Notice of from Intent to file Motion for conference Reconsideration (ECF No. call 45), which the court Struck (ECF No. 50) -Def then filed joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (ECF No. 52) TDC-17- Home Depot Closed 2/28/2018 No No 3734 U.S.A., Inc. -Home Depot filed MTD Thomas (ECF No. 7), which was Alston dismissed only for failing to file notice of intent (ECF No. 11) 32

-HD filed intent (ECF No. 12), and Alston filed an amended complaint (ECF No. 15) -HD filed Notice of Settlement (ECF No. 16) CBD-18- BWW Law *Open Jeffrey No 170 Group, LLC; -2 MTDs between all Defs Styles filed Estate of Rushmore (ECF Nos. 36, 37), and Motion to Russell E. Loan Plaintiffs were granted leave Appear Pro Morgan Sr.; Management; to file Second Amended Hac Vice Russel E. Nationstar Complaint (ECF no. 46), (ECF Nos. Morgan, Jr. Mortgage, which they did (ECF No. 11, 14), LLC (term 47) which was 11/20/19); -BWW, Rushmore, and US supported Federal Home Bank filed another MTD by Quinn Loan (ECF No. 49), and Freddie Breece Mortgage Mac and Nationstar filed Lobato Corporation notice they would rely on (Freddie Mac) original MTD (ECF No. 50). (term Both were granted in part 11/20/19); and denied in part (ECF US Bank, Nos. 67, 68, 69, 70) N.A.; -Plaintiffs filed motion for Legacy leave to file Third Amended Mortgage Complaint (ECF No. 63), Asset Trust which was granted (ECF 2017-GSI No. 76). Plaintiffs then filed (seemingly not Third Amended Complaint served) (ECF No. 74) -BBW, Rushmore, and US Bank filed Motion to Stay pending settlement discussions (ECF No. 77), which was granted (ECF No. 78) -Freddie Mac and Nationstar filed Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 79) -BWW filed Motion to Stay pending settlement (ECF No. 81), which was granted (ECF No. 82) 33

GJH-18- Deutsche *Motion to Alter/Amend No No 2425 Bank National Pending Thomas Trust Co.; -Defs filed MTD (ECF No. Alston; Ocwen Loan 10), and Plaintiffs filed Brandon Servicing, leave to file Second Pittman LLC; Amended Complaint (ECF Altisource No. 14) Solutions, Inc. -Judge Hazel denied (seemingly amendment and dismissed never served) case b/c it is barred by res judicata (ECF Nos. 21, 22) -Plaintiffs filed Motion to Alter/Amend judgment (ECF No. 23) (PENDING) GJH-18- AT&T *case consolidated with No No 2519 Services, Inc.; GJH-18-2529 Thomas (other Alston defendants listed, but not served under this number) GJH-18- AT&T *Open No No 2529 Services, Inc.; -First Premier filed MTD Thomas Credit One (ECF No. 5), Alston Alston Bank, N.A.; Amended Complaint (ECF Great Plains No. 9), and First Premier National filed another MTD (ECF no. Bank; 11), which was denied (ECF Home Point Nos. 18, 19) Financial -First Premier filed Answer Corp. (not (ECF No. 22), and Alston served); filed Motion to Strike Milestone affirmative defenses (ECF Distribution, No. 23) (PENDING) Inc. (not served); First Premier Bank PX-18-2540 Wells Fargo Closed 10/10/2019 Styles did No Christopher Bank; -TU (ECF No. 8), Experian not file Owens Credit Control (ECF No. 12), DCI (ECF Complaint, Services, Inc.; No. 14), WF (ECF No. 19, but docket Diversified and CCSI (ECF No. 22) does not Consultants, filed individual Answers reflect when his 34

Inc. (term -Equifax (ECF No. 10), appearance 8/20/19); Navient (ECF No. 26) filed was Enhanced individual MTDs entered. Recovery Co., -Owens voluntarily First entry LLC (term dismissed ERC (ECF No. is ECF No. 10/3/18); 30) and Equifax (ECF No. 33 Navient 31); filed stipulations of Solutions, dismissal as to DCI (ECF LLC (term No. 36) and Experian (ECF 8/30/19); No. 38) Equifax -Court allowed Owens to Information file amended complaint Services, LLC (ECF No. 40), which he did (term (ECF No. 41) 10/3/18); -Owens voluntarily Experian dismissed Experian (ECF Information No. 42), and filed notice of Solutions, Inc. settlement as to Navient (term 5/8/19); (ECF No. 44) Trans Union, -CCS and WF filed Answers LLC (term to the amended complaint 6/6/19) (ECF Nos. 46, 47) -TU filed stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 48) -WF filed stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 58) CCB-18- Bank of Closed 9/25/2019 Styles did No 2728 America (term -Equifax filed MTD (ECF not file Eltina 4/12/19); No. 4), but Matthews Complaint, Matthews Credit One voluntarily dismissed and his Financial Equifax (ECF No. 14) notice of (term -Southwest filed Motion to appearance 4/23/19); Strike Complaint (ECF No. is not on I.O., Inc.; 7), which BOA joined (ECF docket. Southwest No. 9). These motions were First filing Credit granted (ECF No. 21) is ECF No. Systems, L.P.; -Matthews filed Motion for 22, which Equifax Reconsideration of granting is a Motion Information the Motions to Strike (ECF for Services, LLC No. 22), which was granted Reconsider (term (ECF No. 28), and Matthews ation 10/23/18); filed an Amended Experian Complaint (ECF No. 30) Information -Matthews filed Notices of Settlement as to Credit One 35

Solutions, Inc. (ECF No. 41) and Southwest (term 8/14/19) (ECF No. 44), and filed Voluntary Dismissals as to BOA (ECF No. 45), Experian (ECF No. 52), and I.O. (ECF No. 56) TDC-18- Barclays Bank Closed 6/28/19 No No 2829 Delaware -Barclays filed MTD (ECF Thomas No. 12), which was denied Alston without prejudice pending limited discovery (ECF No. 31) -Alston filed motion for extension of time to complete discovery (ECF No. 36), which was granted (ECF No. 38) -Alston filed notice of settlement (ECF No. 39) TJS-19- Service One, Closed 11/21/2019 Styles filed No 1475 Inc.; -Defs filed MTD (ECF No. complaint Thomas Wilmington 21) Alston; Savings Fund -a Joint Notice of Settlement SAIC Society, FSB filed (ECF No. 23), followed Realty and by Defs filing a stipulation Investments, of dismissal two months LLC; later (ECF No. 24) SWDC Investments LLC GJH-19- Newrez LLC; *Open Styles filed No 2331 Federal -B&S filed a MTD, and complaint Dawud J. National Fannie Mae and Newrez Best Mortgage together filed a MTD (ECF class action Association Nos. 12, 14) (PENDING) plaintiff (Fannie Mae); -Best filed Amended Brock & Scott, Complaint (ECF No. 19) PLLC -Fannie Mae and Newrez filed joint MTD (ECF No. 22) (PENDING) PJM-19- Transit *Open Styles No 2495 Employees -TECU filed Answer (ECF entered Carey Credit Union; No. 4) appearance Vaughn Richard D. *no other litigation yet after case London & removed 36

Associates, from P.C. (not yet Circuit served) Court (ECF No. 6) PWG-19- BWW Law *Open (filed 10/25/19) Styles filed No 3112 Group LLC; -SunTrust (2) filed Answer complaint Monica SunTrust (ECF No. 12) Garey Mortgage Inc.; *no other litigation yet SunTrust Bank