Hayfield v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

• Decision Date: 01 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. CIV. A. 00-CV-4776.,CIV. A. 00-CV-4776.
• Citation: 168 F.Supp.2d 436
• Parties: Joan HAYFIELD, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and Artistic Checks Company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

168 F.Supp.2d 436

Joan HAYFIELD, Plaintiff, v.HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. and Artistic Checks Company, Defendants.

No. CIV. A. 00-CV-4776.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

October 1, 2001.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

William P. Coffin, Easton, PA, for Joan Hayfield.

Robert B. Lawler, Louis S. Flocco, Philadelphia, PA, for Home Depot, Inc.

John W. Ashley, Allentown, PA, for Artistic Checks Company.

OPINION AND ORDER

VAN ANTWERPEN, District Judge.

PlaintiffJoan Hayfield("Plaintiff") brings this case against Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. and Artistic Checks Company("Defendants").Plaintiff alleges malicious prosecution against Home Depot and breach of contract and negligence against Artistic.Currently we consider summary judgment motions filed by Defendants, and deny both motions, for the reasons set forth hereinafter.The case will be immediately scheduled for trial.

I.INTRODUCTION

We have before usDefendant Home Depot's Notice of Removal, filed on September 20, 2000("Removal"), Answer to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by DefendantArtistic Checks Company, filed on December 13, 2000, Answer and Separate Affirmative Defenses to Complaint by DefendantHome Depot, Inc., filed on December 15, 2000, Reply by DefendantHome Depot, Inc. to DefendantArtistic Checks Company, Inc. Crossclaim, filed on January 5, 2001, Self-Executing Disclosure by Defendant Artistic Checks Comp., filed on February 14, 2001, Motion by DefendantHome Depot, Inc. for Summary Judgment, Memorandum, ("Home Depot SJ Mot.,""Home Depot SJ Brief"), filed on July 5, 2001, Answer by PlaintiffJoan Hayfield to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Home Depot, filed on August 9, 2001, Brief by PlaintiffJoan Hayfield in Support of Response to Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to FRCP 56(b)("Plaintiff's Response to Home Depot"), filed on August 9, 2001, Notice of Motion and Motion by Defendant Artistic Checks Comp. for Summary Judgment, filed on August 16, 2001, Brief by Defendant Artistic Checks Comp. in Support of Summary Judgment ("Artistic SJ Brief"), filed on August 16, 2001, Response by DefendantHome Depot, Inc. to Defendant Artistic Check's Motion for Summary Judgment, Memorandum, filed on August 27, 2001, and Plaintiff's Answer to Motion for Summary Judgment Filed by DefendantArtistic Checks Company and Memorandum ("Plaintiff's Response to Artistic"), filed on September 14, 2001.

II.BACKGROUND

The most essential facts are undisputed.On July 13, 1999, Plaintiff made a $35.28 purchase at Home Depot, using a check which had been erroneously printed with an incorrect account number by Artistic.Artistic SJ Briefat 2-3.Plaintiff was unaware of Artistic's error at the time she executed the check.Id. at 6.Plaintiff sent a substitute check to Home Depot for the amount of the original check plus a returned check fee on August 22, 1999.Home Depot SJ Briefat 2,6.Home Depot, after depositing Plaintiff's substitute check on September 14, 1999, initiated criminal prosecution of Plaintiff on October 7, 1999 under a state law designed to combat bad check writing.Id.Plaintiff was acquitted at a January 21, 2000 hearing.Id. at 2.

The following are the details related by Plaintiff in her deposition."Deposition of Joan Hayfield,"May 3, 2001, provided as Exhibit to Artistic SJ Mot. ("Plaintiff's Depo.").Plaintiff is an unsophisticated sales representative who rearranges products on grocery shelves.Plaintiff's Depo. at 6:23-7:18.She never graduated from high school and earns just over $10 an hour.Id.at 7:24-8:2.She purchased checks from Defendant Artistic because she learned these checks were less expensive than her bank's checks.Id.at 10:12-14.Plaintiff was trying to save costs wherever possible because she had recently purchased a new house.Id.

When Plaintiff received her new checks in the mail on July 13, 1999, she inspected her name and address but did not notice the account number printed on the checks.Id.at 14:8-15:6.Plaintiff has had a 14-year relationship with her bank, the Stroehmann Credit Union, and has never felt it necessary to inspect the numbers on her checks.Id.at 33:5-9.During her 14 years as a Stroehmann customer, Plaintiff has never bounced a check.Id.at 18:22-19:1.

Plaintiff states that she"was so psyched [excited] when I got those checks, because they were my new checks in my new house, I was going to go to Home Depot and buy everything."Id.at 33:20-22.Plaintiff, who was a regular customer at that Home Depot store in Bethlehem, went directly to this store on July 13 and used the first of her new checks from Artistic to make $35.28 in purchases.Id.at 34:7-11, 37:1-9.At the time, Plaintiff had approximately $2,000 in her bank account.Id.at 50:3-13; 191:20-192:3.

Only later did Plaintiff discover that her checks were erroneously numbered.Id.at 20:7-19.She called the credit union the day after she learned one of her checks had bounced, and realized Artistic's printing error in discussion with bank personnel.Id.at 21:4-13, 22:2-10, 24:9-25.Plaintiff"didn't wait" to contact Artistic.Id.at 25:4-19.Artistic apologized, said it would reimburse Plaintiff and volunteered to send a letter explaining its error, which Plaintiff, in turn, could provide to creditors.Id.at 25:22-27:4.Artistic fulfilled these promises.Id.Plaintiff contacted all of the creditors, including Home Depot, to whom she had written checks, explaining the situation and offering to make an effective payment.Id.at 45:20-46:5.The Home Depot representative on the phone indicated that it would be acceptable for Plaintiff to return to the store to clear her debt.Id. at 47:18-48:12

On or about August 22, 1999, before Home Depot began its prosecution, Plaintiff drove one hour to the store where she had made her purchases, intending to make a substitute payment using an old, valid check issued by her credit union before she received Artistic's checks.Id.at 45:13-16; 185:16-185:25.Plaintiff states that she planned to show Home Depot officials her good checks and those issued by Artistic, adding, "I had my license with me, my registration with me, my company car information with me, everything, to show these people that I was not trying to rip them off."Id.at 48:7-12.

Plaintiff was told that Home Depot would not accept another check.Id. at 48:15-49:19.She had not brought enough cash to make a payment.Id.at 57:1-16.Because Plaintiff's first check was considered a bounced check, Plaintiff understood that she would be required to pay an additional $20.Id.at 50:12-13.According to Plaintiff, she was predisposed to paying the $20 to end the situation, saying, "I didn't argue the $20.I had said, you know what, you can have it."Id.

Plaintiff showed or read Artistic's letter of explanation to approximately a dozen creditors and all but Home Depot accepted it without any problem.Id. at 16:12; 53:10-23.Although Plaintiff brought the Artistic letter to Home Depot to clear her name, no one would listen to her.Id.at 54:3-18.She explains, "Nobody would come down and talk to me.I mean, I had my license, all that stuff, to show that I'm, I was not a bad person. .... I wanted to clear me."[sic]Id.at 54:3-18.

On at least one occasion, Plaintiff spoke with Home Depot's Manager, "Tina,"Christina Cunha, who later filed the criminal complaint.Id. at 63:11-67:19; 102:19-23.Plaintiff engaged in a conference call and "about a dozen" other discussions with an executive in Home Depot's Georgia headquarters, Mickey Davis, explaining her entire situation, beginning with Artistic's printing error.Id.at 66:20-67:9; 197:1-25.In total, she spent approximately $20 on phone calls to Georgia.Id.at 112:10-19.Home Depot acknowledges that Plaintiff made calls to its office in Georgia before she received a criminal summons.Id.at 68:6-14.

Immediately after Plaintiff's visit to Home Depot on or about August 22, finding no resolution, Plaintiff took matters into her own hands and wrote Home Depot a letter of explanation with a replacement check for the $35.20 original charge plus the $20 penalty the company demanded.Id. at 69:22-71:2, 87:11-90:25.The replacement check was cashed by Home Depot and cleared on September 14, 1999.Id. at 76:14-77:10.

In October 1999, Plaintiff received from Home Depot her criminal summons, an "arresting type of paper," accusing her of paying bad checks.Id. at 77:17-78:14.Plaintiff states, "I took it as being, you know, like, I'm going to get arrested and go to jail.I've never gotten papers like that before in my life."Id.at 78:6-8.Plaintiff paid over $183 bond to avoid incarceration.Id.at 79:15-16, 19-20.

Traumatized, Plaintiff began calling friends to calm her down.Id.at 82:2.Then she again called Mickey Davis, the Home Depot executive in Georgia, and weeping, she pleaded with him to stop the prosecution.Id.at 87:11-90:25, 197:1-25.She communicated to him her frustrations: "Did somebody cash my check and pocket the money?[W]here is the deposit slip?That's what I kept asking Mickey Davis.Ask them for the deposit slip.Well, we can't find it.That's not my fault.That's not my problem.You know, do better record keeping."Id.at 131:5-24.She also cried on the phone with the District Justice's office, which told Plaintiff that its hands were tied.Id. at 95:18.

Between her October receipt of the summons and her January criminal hearing, Plaintiff was "upset constantly."Id.at 103:14-104:3.As she explains, "You think about it constantly, constantly what's going to happen.I never encountered something like this before....I mean, I was, I'm still, I still am extremely upset over this.But this should not have been happening. ...It's, it's in the back of my mind, it was in the back of my mind, what's going to happen, who's going to be there.You know, if you never had...