Hudson v. Babilonia
| Decision Date | 14 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:14-cv-01646 (MPS),3:14-cv-01646 (MPS) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | Charles HUDSON & Aleeshia Bailey Hudson, Plaintiffs, v. Aisha BABILONIA, SLM Corporation, Sallie Mae, Inc., Sallie Mae Bank, & PFS/Progressive Financial Services, Inc., Defendants. |
Gregory Osakwe, Gregory C. Osakwe, Nitor V. Egbarin, Law Office of Nitor V. Egbarin, LLC, Hartford, CT, For Plaintiffs.
Robert F. Seidler, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Kelly Marie Cardin, William C. Ruggiero, Kelly Marie Cardin, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Stamford, CT, Cindy D. Salvo, The Salvo Law Firm, P.C., West Caldwell, NJ, John J. O'Connor, Ian James Gemmell, Peabody & Arnold LLP, Boston, MA, Tara Lynn Trifon, Locke Lord LLP, Hartford, CT, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs Charles Hudson and Aleeshia Bailey Hudson assert claims under various consumer protection laws against Aisha Babilonia, SLM Corporation (now Navient Corporation ("Navient Corp.")), Sallie Mae Bank, Sallie Mae, Inc. (now Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI")), and PFS/Progressive Financial Services, Inc. ("Progressive") arising from the theft of Mr. Hudson's identity, the use of his identity to obtain a student loan, and efforts to collect a delinquency on that loan. Navient Corp., Sallie Mae Bank, and NSI, whom together I refer to as the "Navient Defendants," have filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 102), and Progressive has filed a separate motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 95). In both motions, the defendants seek summary judgment on all counts. For the reasons explained below, I grant in part and deny in part both motions.1
The following facts are undisputed according to the parties' Local Rule 56(a) statements.2 Charles Hudson and Aleeshia Bailey Hudson live in Windsor, Connecticut. (Bailey Hudson Dep., Pls.' Mem. Opp. Ex. 5 at 27.) They do not own or rent property in Brooklyn, New York. (C. Hudson Dep., Pls.' MSJ Mem. Opp. Ex. 4, at 19.) They carry their own cell phones and do not answer each other's phone. (Id. at 44.)
Between April 6 and 10, 2012, Defendant Aisha Babilonia completed an online application for a "Smart Option Student Loan" in the amount of $15,000 with NSI.3 ( The application listed Mr. Hudson as a cosigner. (See Austin Aff. Ex B., ECF No. 102-3, at 42.) After receiving the application, NSI obtained Mr. Hudson's credit report on April 6, 2012. ( NSI approved and disbursed $15,000 to Babilonia on June 5, 2012. (Austin Aff. ¶¶ 15, 23.)
In December 2013, the Babilonia loan was delinquent. (Id. at ¶ 25.) In an effort to obtain payment on the loan, NSI again obtained Mr. Hudson's credit report on January 2, 2014. (Id. at ¶ 26.) An NSI representative named Kenn also called Mr. Hudson on January 8, 2014. (Id. at ¶ 22.) The following conversation ensued:
(January 8, 2014 Call Tr., Austin Aff. Ex. I, ECF No. 102-4, at 29–31; see also Austin Aff. Ex. H (audio recording).)
The same day, Ms. Hudson called NSI, and informed Kenn that her husband had not, in fact, cosigned any student loan. (Bailey Hudson Dep., Navient MSJ Ex. 3, ECF No. 102-7, at 7–8.) Mr. Hudson called Kenn on January 13, 2014, and confirmed that he had never cosigned a student loan. (January 13, 2014 Call Tr., ECF No. 56-2.) During that call, Mr. Hudson also informed Kenn that 1436 Park Place was not his address, provided Kenn with his Windsor, Connecticut address, and told Kenn that the Connecticut address NSI had in its file was his mother's address. (Id. at 2–4.) Mr. Hudson also told Kenn that he did not know any Aisha Babilonia, and that when they spoke on January 8, the only reason he suggested that he knew of the loan was that he thought Kenn was referring to his wife, Aleeshia. (Id. at 4.) Kenn then gave Mr. Hudson the following instructions:
What you want to do to proceed further before this month ends, because the account here is going to roll into default. Unfortunately we do not have all of your information, so it is going to affect your credit. What you want to try to do right away is go to the nearest police department and file charges on this, because what I'll do is I can put it in as fraud, and when the fraud department calls you to ask you if you signed for the loan and tell them no, they're going to look for a police report. So you want to try to file charges against this person because if you don't know who this is, then your information is here on the account along with your signatures regarding this loan.
(Id. at 4–5.) Mr. Hudson asked Kenn what phone number was provided with the loan application, and Kenn responded with a phone number that Mr. Hudson stated he did not recognize. (Id. at 5.) Mr. Hudson also asked how NSI found Mr. Hudson's actual phone number, to which Kenn responded, (Id. at 5.) Kenn mentioned two other numbers; the first of which Mr. Hudson did not recognize, but the second of which Mr. Hudson stated was his residential landline number. (Id. at 5–6.) Kenn told Mr. Hudson that he would send him paperwork to complete, and stated, (Id. at 7.)5
On February 7, 2014, NSI's fraud investigation department mailed Mr. Hudson a letter instructing him to complete and sign an "Identity Theft Affidavit," which was attached. (Feb. 7, 2014 Letter, Austin Aff. Ex. J.) The letter further instructed Mr. Hudson to have the affidavit notarized, and "return it to us along with the required documents, as indicated in the Instructions for Completing the Identity Theft Affidavit." (Id. ) Finally, it stated, "We'll keep this file active for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter," and that "You may want to place a fraud alert on your credit file." (Id. )
(April 24, 2014 Letter, Austin Aff. Ex. L.) Attached to the letter were two pages from the Identity Theft Affidavit, the first labeled "How the Fraud Occurred," in which the following statements were checked: "I did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Iconics, Inc. v. Massaro
-
Wong v. Alt. Claims Mgmt., LLC
...need not strictly adhere to the procedures set forth in Section 1692g(b) prior to asserting an FDCPA claim. Hudson v. Babilonia, 192 F. Supp. 3d 274, 305 (D. Conn. 2016). In Hudson, the plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants violated Section 1692e(2)(a) by misrepresenting the un......
-
Montague v. Sodexco, Inc.
...Montague does not respond to this argument in her opposition brief, such that I may deem her claim abandoned. See Hudson v. Babilonia, 192 F. Supp. 3d 274, 289 (D. Conn. 2016). Nonetheless, though Montague does not make this argument, the language of the settlement agreement is arguably amb......
-
Kruckow v. Merchants Bank
...for a business where an imposter caused the business to obtain in good faith the victim's credit report), and Hudson v. Babilonia, 192 F. Supp. 3d 274, 299 (D. Conn. 2016) (granting summary judgment on FCRA claims for reports tied to a fraudulent loan when the lender had "no reason to belie......