Edward Crespo v. Midland Credit Management, Inc

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Edward Crespo. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-17348

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-17348
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-60843-JAL

EDWARD CRESPO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.,
a Kansas Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 22, 2017)
Before HULL, MARCUS, and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-17348

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Edward Crespo appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“Midland”). After careful review, we
affirm the district court.
I.
On April 26, 2012, Crespo brought suit against Midland alleging violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 559.55., and the Florida Security of
Communications Act, Fla. Stat. § 934.01. The district court dismissed Crespo’s
federal claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
state law claims. As a result, Crespo took his state claims to state court.
In March 2013, Crespo and Midland reached a tentative settlement
agreement to resolve the state court matter. Midland processed a $30,000 check
payable to Crespo’s attorney, but then voided the check after the settlement
agreement fell through. Several months later, Crespo and Midland did agree on
final terms of the settlement. Midland cut a new check for $30,000 on January 13,
2014.
In the spring of 2014, Midland’s accounting department processed a 1099MISC form for the 2013 calendar year that said Crespo received $30,000 of
income from Midland. This form was submitted to the Internal Revenue Service
(“IRS”). One year later, Crespo’s attorney contacted Midland about the 10992

Case: 16-17348

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

Page: 3 of 5

MISC being filed for the 2013 calendar year instead of 2014. After receiving this
information, Midland voided the 2013 1099-MISC form and filed the correct
information with the IRS on April 23, 2015.
Crespo brought this action against Midland on April 20, 2015. He alleged
that Midland willfully filed a fraudulent tax return (the 2013 1099-MISC form) in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434. Midland sought summary judgment against Crespo,
and submitted a statement of material facts in support of its motion. Crespo
responded to Midland’s motion with a series of arguments, but failed to file his
own statement of material facts.
Because Crespo did not file his own statement of material facts, the district
court reviewed the evidence and then treated Midland’s statement of facts as true.
The district court did this under the provisions of Southern District of Florida
Local Rule 56.1, which says the movant’s statement of material facts “will be
deemed admitted unless controverted by the opposing party’s statement.” On this
record, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Midland. This
appeal followed.
II.
We review de novo the grant of summary judgment. Byars v. Coca-Cola
Co., 517 F.3d 1256, 1263 (11th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate only
“if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and
3

Case: 16-17348

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

Page: 4 of 5

the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see
also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552–53
(1986).
Crespo does not dispute that he failed to file an opposing statement of
material facts. Instead he argues that the district court misapplied Local Rule 56.1
in his case. He relies on the text of Local Rule 56.1, which says in relevant part:
(b) Effect of Failure to Controvert Statement of Undisputed Facts.
All material facts set forth in the movant’s statement filed and
supported as required above will be deemed admitted unless
controverted by the opposing party’s statement, provided that the
Court finds that the movant’s statement is supported by evidence in
the record.
S.D. Fla. L.R. 56.1(b). Crespo argues the district court failed to follow this rule
because Midland’s statement of facts was not “supported by evidence in the
record” as this rule requires. See id.
More to the point, he says the district court ignored conflicting evidence
about when Midland submitted the 2013 1099-MISC form to the IRS. Crespo
points out that the deadline to submit this tax form was March 31, 2013, but
Midland did not file the form until April 24, 2014. He also relies on Midland’s
initial pleadings, which said this form was filed “on or about April 24, 2014,” but
Midland’s statement of material facts changed this date to March 28, 2014. Crespo
argues this disputed material fact supports the inference that Midland willfully

4

Case: 16-17348

Date Filed: 05/22/2017

Page: 5 of 5

filed this fraudulent tax return to harm him through an IRS enforcement action
because it was filed after his own April 15, 2014 tax deadline.
The district court found the undisputed facts showed Midland’s 2013 tax
filing was the result of an accounting error, and not any intentional wrongdoing as
required by 26 U.S.C. § 7434. The court reached this conclusion not because of
the date of the tax filing, but because of two sworn statements: one from a Midland
employee and one from an employee of Midland’s tax form processing vendor.
The undisputed facts established that the 2013 form was mistakenly processed and
immediately corrected once it was brought to Midland’s attention, so the district
court found that Crespo had “proffered no evidence that could establish [Midland]
acted intentionally.” Even assuming that Midland did not file the tax form until
April 24, 2014, this delay is not enough to overcome what Crespo failed to dispute:
two sworn statements that the filing was a mistake and Midland’s statement of
material facts that said the “1099-MISC was mistakenly prepared.” On this record,
there is no genuine dispute of material fact and Midland is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We therefore affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.

5