Summary
holding that fines levied by county for parking violation and failure to register vehicle did not meet criteria for FDCPA debts
Summary of this case from Gulley v. Markoff & KrasnyOpinion
Civil No. 08-594 (DSD/SRN).
May 30, 2008
Troy Shannon, Wayzata, MN, pro se.
Charles F. Webber, Esq. and Faegre Benson, Minneapolis, MN, counsel for defendant.
ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Based upon a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court grants defendant's motion.
BACKGROUND
This dispute arises out of plaintiff Troy Shannon's ("Shannon") alleged motor-vehicle-related fines owed to Hennepin County, Minnesota. Hennepin County contracts with defendant ACS State and Local Solutions, Inc. ("ACS") for ACS to collect on behalf of the county various obligations, including unpaid fines associated with motor vehicle citations. ACS records indicate that Shannon received two motor-vehicle-related citations in Hennepin County — a parking ticket and a fine for invalid vehicle registration — and has paid neither fine. ACS sent Shannon a letter attempting to collect the fines.
On January 9, 2008, Shannon filed a statement of claims in Hennepin County conciliation court alleging that ACS violated the Fair Debts Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). ACS removed the case to federal court on February 29, 2008, and now moves for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
I. Standard of Review
The moving party in a motion for summary judgment will prevail if it demonstrates to the court that "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). A fact is material only when its resolution affects the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute is genuine if the evidence is such that it could cause a reasonable jury to return a verdict for either party. See id. at 252.
On a motion for summary judgment, all evidence and inferences are to be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See id. at 255. The nonmoving party, however, may not rest upon mere denials or allegations in the pleadings but must set forth specific facts sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324. Moreover, if a nonmoving party cannot support each essential element of its claim, summary judgment must be granted because a complete failure of proof regarding an essential element necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.Id. at 322-23.
II. FDCPA
III. FCRA
See15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e 1692gId. Hicken v. Arnold, Anderson Dove, P.L.L.P.137 F. Supp. 2d 11411143 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s 2
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 5] is granted.