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.

Chinnick v. National Credit Systems Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

February 2, 2017

MICHELLE CHINNICK, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL CREDIT SYSTEMS INC, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

          Barbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge.

         I.INTRODUCTION

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 25.) Plaintiff has filed suit alleging numerous violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and Defendant moves for dismissal of all claims. Plaintiff opposes the motion.

         Upon review of all briefing, the applicable case law and relevant parts of the record, the Court GRANTS summary judgment to Defendant; Plaintiff's claims are ordered DISMISSED with prejudice in their entirety. The Court's reasoning follows:

         II.LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, demonstrates “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Galen v. Cnty of L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007). The court is “required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the [non-moving] party.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).

         The moving party bears the initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he or she is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. If the moving party meets its burden, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to “make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of the essential elements of his case that he must prove at trial.” Galen, 477 F.3d at 658.

         III. BACKGROUND

         The parties do not dispute each other's allegations of these facts:

         On February 14, 2011, an apartment complex called The Timbers at Kenmore referred to Defendant for collection a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff. On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff contacted Defendant by telephone and indicated that she disputed the debt. Defendant noted the fact of the call and Plaintiff's allegation that the debt was invalid in its records; the same record also reflects that Plaintiff was advised to send Defendant all her information regarding the disputed debt. (Dkt. No. 30-1, Decl. of Trigsted, Ex. A.) Defendant represents that it received no information from Plaintiff establishing that the debt had been forgiven or dismissed.

         On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff sued Defendant, alleging these violations of the FDCPA:

• Threatening “to take [an] action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken” in violation of § 1692e(5). (Dkt. No. 15, Amended Complaint, ¶ 10.)
• Falsely representing the “character, amount or legal status of [a] debt” in violation of § 1692e(2)(A). (Id. at ¶ 11.)
• “Communicating… credit information which is known or should be known to be false, including failing to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed” in ...

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.