Opinion
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present.
Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present.
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the Court is a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant MRS BPO, LLC (" Defendant") (Docket No. 19). Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-15, the Court finds that this matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. The hearing calendared for April 27, 2015, is vacated, and the matter taken off calendar.
Plaintiff Monicah Ono (" Plaintiff"), who is appearing pro se, alleges claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (" FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (" FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681. The caption of Plaintiff's Complaint also refers to California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, but except for a request for an award of statutory damages under the Rosenthal Act contained in the Complaint's prayer for relief, the remainder of the Complaint does not make any allegations under the Rosenthal Act or assert a claim for a violation of the Rosenthal Act.
According to the Complaint, which contains only the barest of conclusory allegations, Defendant, which is a debt collector, obtained a copy of Plaintiff's credit report without having a " permissible purpose" for doing so in violation of the FCRA and, in an unspecified way, allegedly misrepresented the legal status of Plaintiff's debt in an effort to collect on that debt in violation of the FDCPA. Plaintiff's Complaint additionally alleges that Defendant did not respond to several letters she sent to Defendant requesting that Defendant provide her with the authority by which they sought her credit report and information to validate the debt Defendant was trying to collect.
Plaintiff filed an Opposition to Defendant's Motion on April 20, 2015, which is just 7 days prior to the scheduled hearing date, rather than the 21 days before the hearing as required by Local Rule 7-9. See Local Rule 7-12 (" The Court may decline to consider any memorandum or other paper not filed within the deadline set by order or local rule. The failure to file any required paper, or the failure to file it within the deadline, may be deemed consent to the granting or denial of the motion."). However, consistent with Marshall v. Gates, 44 F.3d 722 (9th Cir. 1995), the Court will not grant a motion for summary judgment due to the non-moving party's failure to file an opposition. Id. at 725 (" [W]e have held that a motion for summary judgment cannot be granted simply because the opposing party violated a local rule.") (citing Henry v. Gill Industries, Inc., 983 F.2d 943, 950 (9th Cir.1993)). Instead, the Court must still analyze the record to determine if any material disputed facts exist. Id. Here, the Court has considered Plaintiff's late-filed Opposition.
In support of its Motion, Defendant has submitted evidence establishing that it in fact responded to Plaintiff's inquiries. Defendant's evidence in support of its Motion also establishes that it accessed Plaintiff's credit report in connection with its efforts to collect on a debt owed by Plaintiff that had been assigned to it by Chase Bank. Accessing Plaintiff's credit report to aid in collection efforts under these circumstances is a " permissible purpose" under the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(a)(3)(A) (" [A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to] a person which it has reason to believe . . . intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer . . . ."). Additionally, there is no evidence that Defendant engaged in any deceptive or other conduct that violates the FDCPA or Rosenthal Act.
Moreover, despite this Court's issuance of its August 8, 2014 Self-Representation Order, which explained a party's burden in opposing a summary judgment motion, Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence in support of her Opposition that creates a triable issue of fact. Plaintiff's legal arguments, which include a citation to California Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, and an effort to demurrer to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment relying on California law, are insufficient as a matter of law.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will issue a Judgment consistent with this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to the Court's Minute Order of April 27, 2015 granting the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by defendant MRS BPO, LLC (" Defendant"), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Defendant shall have judgment in its favor against plaintiff Monicah Ono (" Plaintiff") on Plaintiff's claims for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall take nothing on her Complaint and that Defendant shall have its costs of suit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.