Wright v. Credit Bureau of Georgia, Inc.
Citation | 548 F. Supp. 591 |
Decision Date | 30 September 1982 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. C81-2338A. |
Parties | Juanita Ann WRIGHT v. The CREDIT BUREAU OF GEORGIA, INCORPORATED, and Martha Phillips, in her capacity as agent for The Credit Bureau of Georgia, Incorporated. |
Court | United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. Northern District of Georgia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Donald M. Coleman, Decatur, Ga., for plaintiff.
G. Lee Garrett, Jr. of Hansell, Post, Brandon & Dorsey, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants.
Plaintiff alleges in this action that the defendants have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692o. The action is before the court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment, Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., and the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. Id.
Id. The FDCPA, like many other consumer protection acts, is "primarily self-enforcing." Id. at 5; cf. McGowan v. King, Inc., 569 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1976) ( ).
A party who moves for summary judgment bears the exacting burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact in the case. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 1608, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). In determining whether a movant has met this burden, the court must view the evidence and all factual inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Environmental Defense Fund v. Marsh, 651 F.2d 983, 991 (5th Cir. 1981). If the record presents factual issues, the court must deny the motion and proceed to trial. Id. Furthermore, the court may discover questions of material fact even though both parties, in support of cross-motions for summary judgment, have asserted that no such questions exist. See Donovan v. District Lodge No. 100, IAM, 666 F.2d 883, 886-87 (5th Cir. 1982); Wright, Miller and Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2720. Thus, the court can resolve legal issues raised by the parties on cross-motions for summary judgment only if it has no doubt that the relevant facts are beyond dispute.
Rule 56 permits either party to move for summary judgment in his favor upon "all or any part" of the plaintiff's claims, Rule 56(a) and (b), and summary judgment therefore may be granted as to any one of several claims, Moss v. Ward, 450 F.Supp. 591, 594 (W.D.N.Y.1978). Although the court generally may not grant summary judgment on only one portion of a claim, Bonda's Veevoederfabriek Provimi, B. V. v. Provimi, Inc., 425 F.Supp. 1034, 1036 (E.D.Wis.1976), in some cases summary judgment is proper for one or more distinct issues presented by one claim. Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1123 (5th Cir. 1981).
Plaintiff asserts in this action that the defendants have violated three sections of the FDCPA. The court will treat each alleged violation as a separate claim. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant summary judgment for the defendants on two of the plaintiff's claims; as to the third claim, the court will grant in part and deny in part each party's motion.
Defendant Credit Bureau, Incorporated of Georgia (CBI) is a corporation composed of two divisions. One division is a consumer reporting agency, as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a);2 the second division is a debt collector, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). The collection division sells its service, collection of money owed on delinquent accounts, to creditors for a percentage of the amount of the debt that CBI recovers. Defendant Martha Phillips, named by the plaintiff as a defendant in her capacity as an agent for CBI, is in reality Ms. Bea Bean (defendant Bean), a debt collector employed by CBI. The name "Martha Phillips" is merely a pseudonym, or "desk name," used by any female CBI employee assigned to make collections from debtors whose surnames begin with "W." This name is also used by CBI's computer, which prints the desk name on letters to those debtors.
Sometime before September 30, 1980, the Propes Furniture Company turned over to CBI an account in plaintiff Juanita Wright's name. The account showed a delinquent balance due of $173.74. CBI entered the account information into a computer, which automatically dispatched a form letter addressed to Ms. Wright containing the following information:3
Brief of Defendants in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Defendants' Brief), Exh. C; Statement of Material Facts As to Which Defendants Contend There is No Genuine Issue to Be Tried (Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Facts) at ¶ 7. This letter, like all similar letters sent by CBI to Ms. Wright, bore, in large print at the top of the page, the letterhead:
CBI the credit bureau incorporated of georgia
The only indication that this letter was sent by CBI's collection division was the use of the name "CBI COLLECTIONS—ATLANTA" on the first line of the address that appeared in smaller print at the bottom of the page. A return envelope addressed to a post office box number, which represented a bank lock box account, accompanied the letter.
Statement of Material Facts As to Which Plaintiff Contends There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Tried (Plaintiff's Statement of Undisputed Facts) at ¶ 7.
Plaintiff's Amendment, Exh. B. After a final telephone conversation on May 14, 1981, CBI closed the account and recorded the balance of $137.74 as uncollectible.
Ms. Wright alleges that she has suffered intense mental and emotional distress as the result of the collection efforts of CBI and defendant Bean and seeks statutory damages of $1,000, actual damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees, and costs. In the course of this litigation, Ms. Wright has asserted three separate violations of the FDCPA. First, in the Consolidated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lloyd v. Illinois Regional Transp. Authority, 75 C 1834.
... ... Organ., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 ... standard of review to an agency action, Judge Skelly Wright of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals observed that ... ...
-
Johnson v. Statewide Collections, Inc., 88-285
...668 F.Supp. 1480 (M.D.Ala.1987). See Baker, 677 F.2d 775. See also Central Adjustment, 667 F.Supp. 370; Wright v. Credit Bureau of Georgia, Inc., 548 F.Supp. 591 (N.D.Ga.1982), reconsidered 555 F.Supp. 1005 (N.D.Ga.1983). CheckRite's argument with respect to the impact upon Johnson is not m......
-
Edwards v. Niagara Credit Solutions, Inc.
...telephone calls to Plaintiff without making any meaningful disclosure of the identity of the caller. See Wright v. The Credit Bureau of Georgia, Inc., 548 F.Supp. 591 (N.D.Ga.1982) ("Rather, the `meaningful disclosure' by section 1692d(6) has been made if an individual debt collector who is......
-
Union Carbide Corp. v. Thiokol Corp.
...to prevail as a matter of law. Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d § 2720. Wright v. Credit Bureau of Ga., Inc., 548 F.Supp. 591, 594 (N.D.Ga.1982). A. CERCLA The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA") imposes strict liabi......