Williams v. Equifax Info. Servs., Inc., Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-01216-CLS

• Decision Date: 20 September 2018
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-01216-CLS
• Parties: TROY T. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

TROY T. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 5:17-CV-01216-CLS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

September 20, 2018

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Second Amended Complaint filed by pro se plaintiff, Troy T. Williams, asserts claims against Equifax Information Services, Inc., for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Count I), as well as state law claims for invasion of privacy (Count II), negligent, wanton and/or intentional hiring and supervision (Count III),¹ and an untitled claim alleging that Equifax published false information about him (Count IV).² The case currently is before the court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.³ Upon consideration of the motions, briefs, and evidentiary submissions, the court concludes that plaintiff's motion is due to be denied, and defendant's motion granted.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that a court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows 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). In other words, summary judgment is proper "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). "In making this determination, the court must review all evidence and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing summary judgment." Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1023 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting Haves v. City of Miami, 52 F.3d 918, 921 (11th Cir. 1995)). Inferences in favor of the non-moving party are not unqualified, however. "[A]n inference is not reasonable if it is only a guess or a possibility, for such an inference is not based on the evidence, but is pure conjecture and speculation." Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 1983) (alteration supplied). Moreover,

[t]he mere existence of some factual dispute will not defeat summary judgment unless that factual dispute is material to an issue affecting the outcome of the case. The relevant rules of substantive law dictate the materiality of a disputed fact. A genuine issue of material fact does not exist unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a reasonable jury to return a verdict in its favor.

Chapman, 229 F.3d at 1023 (quoting Haves, 52 F.3d at 921) (emphasis and alteration supplied). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986) (asking "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law").

"The standard of review for cross-motions for summary judgment does not differ from the standard applied when only one party files a motion, but simply requires a determination of whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law on the facts that are not disputed." S. Pilot Ins. Co. v. CECS, Inc., 52 F. Supp. 3d 1240, 1242-43 (N.D. Ga. 2014) (citing Am. Bankers Ins. Group v. United States, 408 F.3d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 2005)). "The Court must consider each motion on its own merits, resolving all reasonable inferences against the party whose motion is under consideration." Id. "The Eleventh Circuit has explained that '[c]ross-motions for summary judgment will not, in themselves, warrant the court in granting summary judgment unless one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on facts that are not genuinely disputed.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1555 (11th Cir. 1984)). "Cross-motions may, however, be probative of the absence of a factual dispute where they reflect general agreement by the parties as to the controlling legal theories and material facts. Id. (quoting Oakley, 744 F.2d at 1555-56).

Alabama Municipal Insurance Corporation v. Scottsdale Insurance Company, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1248, 1252 (N.D. Ala. 2017) (alteration in original).

II. RELEVANT FACTS

Capital One Bank (USA), NA ("Capital One"), obtained a default judgment against Troy T. Williams in the District Court of Madison County, Alabama, on January 21, 2011. The judgment entry reads as follows:

This cause comes before the court upon the Plaintiff's application for a default in the above-styled matter. After reviewing the court record, the court finds that the defendant has been duly served and has failed to answer or otherwise defend upon the complaint. The court further finds the default has been entered in the above styled matter and that a default judgment is due to be entered by the court.

Wherefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that a judgment by default is entered in favor of the Plaintiff, in the sum of $4,078.83 plus costs of court and such post-judgment interest as may accrue on this judgment for which execution may issue.

Doc. no. 107 (Equifax Motion for Summary Judgment), at ECF 40 (Ex. A - Public Records Copy of Default Judgment in favor of Capital One Bank).⁴

The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals described the circumstances leading to that judgment and subsequent proceedings in the state court system as follows:

On December 20, 2010, Capital One filed a complaint against Williams in the district court, asserting that Williams owed $4,078.83 on an account stated between Capital One and Williams. On January 18, 2011, Capital One sought a default judgment against Williams for failure to answer or otherwise defend against the complaint. On January 21, 2011, the district court entered a default judgment in favor of Capital One in the amount of $4,078.83, plus court costs and postjudgment interest.

On September 14, 2011, Williams filed in the district court an "affidavit of status as secured party and creditor" in which he declared himself a member of the "Sovereign People of the Free Republic of Alabama" and sought the withdrawal of any "adverse information" from his credit records and relief from the default judgment. On October 11, 2011, Williams filed in the district court a motion to dismiss, in which he stated, among other things, that "[t]his notice is a trespass in admiralty." Williams also filed in the district court a "common law copyright notice," purporting to reserve rights regarding the copyright and trademark of his name. On November 9, 2011, the district court denied Williams's motion requesting that the case be dismissed.

On September 16, 2013, Williams filed in the district court an independent action seeking to set aside the default judgment. In the pleading initiating the action, Williams asserted, among other things, that Capital One and Holloway⁵ had committed fraud upon the court. Williams also asserted in his pleading, based on his assertion of fraud upon the court, various claims against Capital One and Holloway, and he sought damages in the amount of $128,000,000. On September 23, 2013, the district court entered an order that stated: "The Court having lost jurisdiction in this matter, [Williams's] MOTION TO SET ASIDE is hereby DENIED." On October 3, 2013, Williams filed a "motion to reconsider — motion to amend complaint." In that postjudgment motion, Williams purported to amend his claims against Capital One and Holloway, asserting fraud upon the court, to reduce the requested amount of damages to $2,900, so that his claims would remain within the district court's jurisdiction. See Ala. Code 1975, § 12-12-31(a) (providing that the district court has exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the matter in controversy does not exceed $3,000). As argued by Capital One on appeal, Williams's October 3, 2013, postjudgment motion was denied by operation of law on October 17, 2013, pursuant to Rule 59.1(dc), Ala. R. Civ. P. On October 22, 2013, Williams filed a document titled "addendum — motion to amend complaint," again seeking to set aside the default judgment based upon fraud upon the court and, for the first time, citing Rule 60(b), Ala. R. Civ. P. That motion was a successive postjudgment motion, however, seeking substantially the same relief as Williams's October 3, 2013, motion; thus, that motion did not toll the time for taking an appeal. See Green v. Green, 43 So. 3d 1242, 1243-44 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). On November 1, 2013, the district court entered an order purporting to deny Williams's "motion to reconsider"; however, that order was a nullity because the motion had already been denied by operation of law on October 17, 2013. See Moragne v. Moragne, 888 So. 2d 1280, 1282 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004); and Rule 59.1(dc).

Williams filed an appeal to the circuit court on November 12, 2013. Capital One and Holloway filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the appeal had been untimely filed. On February 3, 2014, the circuit court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss. Williams filed a postjudgment motion on February 28, 2014; that motion was denied by the circuit court on April 10, 2014. Additionally, in the circuit court's April 10, 2014, order denying Williams's postjudgment motion, the circuit court awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $1,112.50 as a sanction against Williams, as requested by Capital One and Holloway. Williams filed his notice of appeal to this court on May 15, 2014.

Capital One argues on appeal that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction and, therefore, that it properly dismissed Williams's appeal from the district court. This court outlined the appropriate standard of review in M.E.W. v. J.W., 142 So. 3d 1168, 1171 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013):

"'The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional act.' Rudd v. Rudd, 467 So. 2d 964, 965 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985); see also Committee Comments to Rule 3, Ala. R. App. P.

...