(PS) Gettemy v. LVNV Funding LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: April 18, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01948
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL J. GETTEMY, No. 2:23-cv-01948-DAD-CKD PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 OMEGA RMS LLC, et. al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, paid the filing fee for this action, which proceeds on the First 18 Amended Complaint (FAC, ECF No. 32) against several defendants. Plaintiff’s claims allege 19 violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 20 (FDCPA). Before the court is defendant Omega’s unopposed motion for summary judgment. 21 (ECF No. 52.) For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned will recommend that Omega’s 22 motion be granted. 23 In the FAC, plaintiff alleges that Omega is a debt collector that provides information to 24 credit reporting agencies. He alleges that his TransUnion credit report lists four collection 25 accounts and that Omega was one source of that information. He alleges that Omega is trying to 26 collect a debt from Prosper Trading Academy (Prosper), where plaintiff was at one time enrolled; 27 however, plaintiff alleges that he cancelled the class and does not owe Prosper money. Plaintiff 28 alleges that Omega violated federal law by attempting to collect a debt he did not owe and by 1 failing to investigate the disputed collection report. 2 On December 16, 2024, Omega filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52), 3 which plaintiff did not oppose. Omega argues that the undisputed evidence shows that plaintiff 4 owes a debt to Prosper for unpaid tuition under an installment agreement plaintiff entered with 5 Prosper in June 2019. The undisputed facts establish that plaintiff attended classes at Prosper and 6 made multiple auto-payments on the tuition debt, but after the credit card he provided was 7 declined, he made no further payments. In September 2020, the unpaid balance was referred to 8 Omega for collection. See ECF No. 52-2 (Omega’s Statement of Undisputed Facts). Omega 9 argues that the undisputed facts show that it violated no federal statutes and that plaintiff’s claims 10 against it are meritless. Omega further asserts that, because plaintiff failed to respond to Omega’s 11 Requests for Admissions about his claims, the above facts are deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. 12 P. 36(a)(3). 13 According to Rule 56(a), this Court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 14 that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 15 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Material facts are those that may affect the case’s outcome. 16 See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact 17 is genuine if there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving 18 party. See id. at 49. At the summary judgment stage, evidence must be viewed in the light most 19 favorable to the nonmoving party and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in the non-movant's 20 favor. See Johnson v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., 658 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 2011). 21 Here, Omega presents undisputed evidence that plaintiff owed the debt at issue, such that 22 Omega violated no federal law in attempting to collect it. As there is no genuine dispute of 23 material fact, Omega is entitled to summary judgment. 24 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 25 1. Omega’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 52) be GRANTED; and 26 2. Defendant Omega be dismissed from this action. 27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 28 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 1 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 4 || within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 5 || Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 6 | Dated: April 17, 2025 / hice ANKE) flo CAROLYNK.DELANEY 4 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 1] 12 13 |] 2/eett1948.s}_féers 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28