Farrell v. Boeing Employees Credit Union et al
Filing
89
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING FARRELL'S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Re: Dkt. Nos. 77 , 78 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2017)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
DANIEL FARRELL,
Plaintiff,
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
12
13
BOEING EMPLOYEES CREDIT
UNION; MOORE BREWER &
WOLFE, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION,
14
15
Defendants.
Case No. 16-cv-02711 NC
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
DENYING FARRELL’S CROSSMOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Re: Dkt. Nos. 77, 78
16
17
In this unfair debt collection case, defendants Boeing Employees Credit Union and
18
19
Moore Brewer & Wolfe move for summary judgment, and plaintiff Daniel Farrell filed a
20
cross-motion for summary judgment. The parties filed a Joint Stipulation setting forth the
21
three questions the Court was to answer at summary judgment. Because the Court finds in
22
favor of Boeing and Moore on each of these questions, the Court GRANTS defendants’
23
motion for summary judgment, and DENIES Farrell’s cross-motion for summary
24
judgment.
25
I.
26
BACKGROUND
A.
Stipulated Facts
27
In the Joint Stipulation, the parties stipulated to the following facts:
28
This case arises from a motor vehicle financing agreement Farrell failed to
Case No. 16-cv-02711 NC
1
maintain. Dkt. No. 76 at 1 (Joint Stipulation Regarding Facts; and, Questions of Law).
2
Boeing filed a complaint on or about May 28, 2010, in California state court, for breach of
3
the retail installment contract. Id. at 2. Moore, Boeing’s attorney, succeeded in obtaining
4
a default judgment against Farrell, who did not respond to the complaint, for both physical
5
repossession of the motor vehicle at issue and the full amount on the contract. Id. On
6
behalf of Boeing, Moore recorded an Abstract of Judgment. Id. Farrell’s car was
7
repossessed on June 8, 2011. Id.
8
9
In 2012, Farrell moved to Indiana, and Moore, on behalf of Boeing, obtained an
earnings withholding order, which was submitted to the Defense Financing and
Accounting Service (DFAS) of the United States Government pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
5520a. Id. at 3. Through DFAS, Moore and Boeing garnished Farrell’s wages. Id. When
12
Farrell moved to Texas in September 2014, DFAS continued to garnish his wages there.
13
That garnishment went on until November 2015. Id. The California judgment was not
14
domesticated in Indiana or Texas. Id.
15
16
B.
Procedural History
Farrell filed his complaint in Monterey County Superior Court on April 11, 2016.
17
Dkt. No. 1 at 1. Boeing and Moore removed the case to federal court on May 19, 2016.
18
Id. Boeing and Moore subsequently filed multiple motions to dismiss portions of the
19
complaint. Dkt. Nos. 14, 39, 56. The result of these motions was the amendment of the
20
Fair Credit Reporting Act claim and the ultimate dismissal of Farrell’s IIED claim. Farrell
21
filed a second amended complaint on November 16, 2016. Dkt. No. 55. The parties filed
22
a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Questions of Law with the Court, which the Court granted.
23
Dkt. No. 76. The parties set forth three questions for the Court to decide on at summary
24
judgment, and stipulated that if Farrell prevailed, the case would go forward to trial, but if
25
defendants prevailed, this case would be dismissed in its entirety as a matter of law. Id. at
26
4-5. The parties subsequently filed the cross-motions for summary judgment. The Court
27
will discuss each of the three questions below.
28
All parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. §
Case No. 16-cv-02711 NC
2
1
636(c). Dkt. Nos. 10, 18.
2
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment may be granted only when, drawing all inferences and
4
resolving all doubts in favor of the nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute as to any
5
material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861, 1863 (2014);
6
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A fact is material when, under
7
governing substantive law, it could affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty
8
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute about a material fact is genuine if “the
9
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
10
Bald assertions that genuine issues of material fact exist are insufficient. Galen v. Cnty. of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
3
L.A., 477 F.3d 652, 658 (9th Cir. 2007).
12
The moving party bears the burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings,
13
discovery, and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
14
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving
15
party must go beyond the pleadings, and, by its own affidavits or discovery, set forth
16
specific facts showing that a genuine issue of fact exists for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c);
17
Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Steckl v.
18
Motorola, Inc., 703 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1983)). All justifiable inferences, however,
19
must be drawn in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Tolan, 134 S. Ct. at
20
1863 (citing Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255).
21
III. DISCUSSION
22
23
The parties asked the Court to answer the following questions:
1.
Whether in using the procedures provided for in 5 U.S.C. § 5520a to enforce
24
the California judgment against Farrell without domesticating the judgment in Indiana and
25
Texas, defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1692i, as well as the FDCPA and RFDCPA;
26
27
28
2.
Whether Defendants violated the FDCPA and the RFDCPA by recording the
Abstract of Judgment; and
3.
Whether Defendants violated the FDCPA and the RFDCPA when they
Case No. 16-cv-02711 NC
3
1
2
proceeded with enforcement of the judgment.
A.
Defendants Did Not Violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692i.
3
As relevant, 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)(2) provides that a debt collector bringing legal
4
action on a debt not enforcing an interest in real property against a consumer must bring
5
that action in the judicial district “(A) in which such consumer signed the contract sued
6
upon; or (B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.” Yet
7
there is no allegation that § 1692i was violated in Farrell’s Second Amended Complaint.
8
Dkt. No. 55. Moreover Farrell conceded that § 1692i had not been violated at oral
9
argument on this motion on April 19, 2017. Dkt. No. 88. Thus, the Court finds that
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
defendants did not violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692i.
B.
Defendants Did Not Violate the FDCPA and the RFDCPA By Recording
the Abstract of Judgment.
12
13
There is no allegation in the complaint or elsewhere that defendants violated the
14
FDCPA and RFDCPA by recording the abstract of judgment in California. Dkt. No. 55.
15
Furthermore, to the extent that issue number 2 in the Joint Stipulation was meant to ask
16
whether defendants violated the law by “not” recording the abstract of judgment in Indiana
17
and Texas, that question is answered in section C below. The Court finds that defendants
18
did not violate the FDCPA and the RFDCPA by recording the Abstract of Judgment.
19
C.
Defendants Did Not Violate the FDCPA and the RFDCPA By Not
Domesticating the Judgment Before Enforcing It.
20
21
Farrell’s motion for summary judgment recognizes that the sole substantive issue
22
before the Court is whether 5 U.S.C. § 5520a allowed Boeing and Moore to garnish his
23
wages without domesticating the California judgment in Indiana and then Texas. Dkt. No.
24
78 at 5.
25
Title 5 U.S.C. § 5520a provides for the garnishment of federal employees’ wages.
26
The statute does not discuss the domestication of a judgment against a debtor should the
27
debtor move out of the jurisdiction where judgment was entered. As to the “legal process”
28
giving rise to the garnishment, the statute provides:
Case No. 16-cv-02711 NC
4
(3) “legal process” means any writ, order, summons, or other
similar process in the nature of garnishment, that—
1
2
(A) is issued by a court of competent jurisdiction within
any State, . . . or an authorized official pursuant to an
order of such a court or pursuant to State or local law; and
3
4
(B) orders the employing agency of such employee to
withhold an amount from the pay of such employee, and
make a payment of such withholding to another person,
for a specifically described satisfaction of a legal debt of
the employee, or recovery of attorney’s fees, interest, or
court costs[.]
5
6
7
5 U.S.C. § 5520a(a). The statute’s enabling regulations, found at 5 C.F.R. § 582 et seq.,
8
likewise do not mention any requirement that a judgment be domesticated. Furthermore,
9
nowhere in the statute or the enabling regulations are consumer debts excluded. Nor does
10
federal law limit garnishment to commercial debts, as Farrell argues. Dkt. No. 78 at 11.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
Farrell attempts to have the Court fashion a limitation to the statute’s reach that is
simply not supported by the statute’s or regulations’ texts. Farrell bases his argument that
consumer debts are excluded on the fact that the DFAS website1 includes “commercial
debts” as a type of debt that may be garnished and because the caption of § 5520a’s
enabling regulation reads: “Commercial Garnishment of Federal Employees’ Pay.” Id. at
16
10-11. However, just because the agency website names a particular debt as being covered
17
does not mean it excludes a type not named. Furthermore, there is no definition in the
18
statute of enabling regulations of what is and is not a “commercial debt.”
19
Farrell’s case-law based arguments to the contrary are likewise unavailing. At oral
20
argument, Farrell asserted that In re Meyer, 211 B.R. 203 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1997),
21
supported his position that § 5520a was limited to commercial debts. The Court has
22
reviewed this case and fails to find any text in that opinion limiting the statute to
23
commercial debts. Farrell’s citation to First Virginia Bank v. Randolph, 920 F. Supp. 213
24
25
26
27
28
Farrell moves for the Court to judicially notice screenshots from the DFAS’s website.
The Court takes judicial of the existence of the website in the public realm, but declines to
notice that the contents of the website are true. Spitzer v. Aljoe, No. 13-cv-05442 MEJ,
2016 WL 3275148, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2016); Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Entm’t
Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1029 (C.D. Cal. 2015). Even though the Court does not find
the DFAS website judicially noticeable, the Court nonetheless discusses the contents, as it
does not alter the Court’s opinion.
Case No. 16-cv-02711 NC
5
1
1
(D.D.C. 1996), rev’d on other grounds by, 110 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 1997), is likewise
2
unavailing. That case merely provides that the statute, “for the first time, allowed the
3
garnishing of the wages of federal employees to satisfy commercial debts.” Id. at 215.
4
Importantly, the court in that case did not limit § 5520a to commercial debts. The Court
5
will not engraft such a limitation to the statute.
Because there was no requirement that Moore or Boeing domesticate the California
6
7
judgment in either Indiana or Texas, the Court need not reach Farrell’s arguments
8
regarding the failure to domesticate the California judgment in those states. Dkt. No. 78 at
9
14-17.
10
Thus, because the Court finds that the federal garnishment statute is not limited to
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
“commercial debts,” the Court also finds that defendants were not required to domesticate
12
the California judgment in Indiana or Texas. The defendants followed 5 U.S.C. § 5520a.
13
IV. CONCLUSION
14
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion for summary
15
judgment, and DENIES Farrell’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The clerk of the
16
court will terminate this case.
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: April 26, 2017
20
_____________________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 16-cv-02711 NC
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?