Jones et al v. Wells Fargo Principal Lending, LLC
Filing
9
ORDER granting 7 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiffs failed to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment and provided no evidence that Defendant took an adverse action against Plaintiffs. Because Plaintiffs' substantive claims have failed, so too must their claim for punitive damages. This case is closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/23/2018. (jlh) Modified on 4/23/2018 (jlh).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION
BRACHEL ROGERS JONES and CHARLES *
JONES,
*
*
Plaintiffs,
*
*
V.
*
CV 616-129
*
WELLS FARGO PRINCIPAL LENDING,
*
LLC,
*
5
Defendant.
*
ORDER
Before
Judgment.
the
Court
(Doc. 7.)
is
Defendant's
Motion
for
Summary
The Clerk has given Plaintiffs notice of
the summary judgment motion and the summary judgment rules, of
the right to file affidavits or other materials in opposition,
and
the
consequences of default.
(Doc. 8.)
Therefore,
the
notice requirements of Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825
(11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), have been satisfied.
have
failed
judgment;
to
with
respond
the
time
to
Defendant's
for
filing
motion
materials
Plaintiffs
for
in
summary
opposition
having expired, the motion is ripe for consideration.
Thus,
Defendant's
SDGa.
("Failure
motion
to respond
is
deemed
within
the
unopposed.
applicable
LR
time
7.5,
period shall
indicate that there is no opposition to a motion.").
following reasons. Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
For the
I.
BACKGROUND
This case presumably revolves around Defendant Wells Fargo
Principal Lending, LLC's "processing" of Plaintiffs' mortgage
loan
application.
Plaintiffs
(Doc.
initiated
this
1,
at
action
5.)
in
On
the
August
18,
Magistrate
2016,
Court
of
Bulloch County, Georgia, alleging that Defendant violated the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1961 et seg.
and Georgia's Fraudulent Misrepresentation Statute, O.C.G.A. §
23-2-52.
(Id.)
complaint
to
Defendant
this
subsequently
Court.
(Doc.
1.)
removed
On
January
Plaintiffs'
13,
2017,
Defendant served a request for admission, pursuant to Federal
Rule
of
Civil Procedure
Plaintiffs
did
not
within thirty days.
36.
answer
(Howard
or
(Id.)
object
Aff., Doc.
to
7-2,
Defendant's
H
3.)
request
Defendant subsequently moved for
summary judgment on November 29, 2017.
(Doc. 7.)
Plaintiffs
have failed to respond to Defendant's motion and have apparently
not participated in this case since its removal.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for summary judgment will be granted if there is
no disputed material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
they could affect the results of the case.
Facts are material if
Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
The court must view
facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and
draw all inferences in its favor.
Ltd.
V.
Zenith
Radio
Corp.,
475
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.,
U.S.
574,
587
(1986).
The
movant initially bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate
the
absence
of
a
disputed
material
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
fact.
Celotex
Corp.
v.
The movant must also show no
reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party on any of
the essential elements.
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d
1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993).
The movant may meet this standard
by showing "that
party
an adverse
evidence to support the fact."
cannot produce
admissible
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B).
If the movant carries its burden, the non-moving party must
come forward with significant, probative evidence showing there
is a material fact in dispute.
Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1116.
The non-movant must respond with affidavits or other forms of
evidence provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.
1116
n.3.
The
non-movant cannot survive
Id. at
summary judgment
relying on its pleadings or conclusory statements.
Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (11th Cir. 1981).
by
Morris v.
After the non-
movant has met this burden, summary judgment is granted only if
"the
combined
body of evidence is still such that the
movant
would be entitled to a directed verdict at trial - that is, such
that
no
reasonable
jury
could
find
for
the
non-movant."
Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1116.
III.
As
a
Defendant
preliminary
satisfied
material fact.
for
Admission
admissions
are
matter,
its
DISCUSSION
the
burden
of
Court
must decide
showing
the
whether
absence
of
a
Defendant supports its motion with the Request
it
served
on
Plaintiffs.
automatically deemed
[R]equests
admitted
if
not
for
answered
within 30 days, and that the matters therein are conclusively
established
amendment
unless
of
the
the
court on
admissions."
motion
United
permits
States
v.
withdrawal or
2204
Barbara
Lane, 960 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir.1992) (internal quotations
omitted).
Nevertheless, a party may not request an admission of
a legal conclusion.
In re Tobkin, 578 F. App'x 962, 964 (11th
Cir. 2014).
Every question in Defendant's Request for Admission is a
legal conclusion that cannot be admitted through Rule 36.
Request for Admission, Doc. 7-3, IH 1-10.)
(See
Yet Defendant also
points out that there is no evidence in the record to support
Plaintiffs' claims.
By doing so. Defendant has satisfied its
burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of fact.
Fed.
R. 56(c)(1)(B) (the moving party's burden may be satisfied by
showing
''that
an
adverse
party
cannot
produce
admissible
evidence to support the fact.").
Accordingly, the burden has
shifted to Plaintiffs to support the essential elements of their
claims with affirmative evidence.
Plaintiffs' complaint includes an allegation that Defendant
violated
Georgia's
Fraudulent
O.C.G.A. 23-2-52 and the ECOA.
Misrepresentation
(Doc. 1, at 5.)
Statute,
Because neither
claim is supported by evidence in the record, summary judgment
is appropriate.
A.
Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim
To
state
plaintiff
a
claim
must
for
prove:
fraudulent
"(1)
misrepresentation,
that
the
defendant
the
made
representations; (2) that at the time he knew they were false;
(3)
that
he
made
them
with
the
intention
and
purpose
of
deceiving the plaintiff; (4) that the plaintiff relied on the
representations;
and
(5)
that
the
plaintiff
sustained
the
alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of their having
been made."
Here,
Bacote v. Wyckoff, 310 S.E.2d 520, 523 (Ga. 1984).
Plaintiffs
these elements.
have
failed
to
provide
evidence
for any of
Because there is no evidence in the record to
support any element of Plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation
claim, summary judgment is appropriate.
B. Plaintiffs' Equal Credit Opportunity Act Claim
ECOA makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate
against an applicant on the basis of "race, color, religion,
sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin."
§ 1691(a).
15 U.S.C.
To be held liable, a creditor must first take an
"adverse action" against the plaintiff.
Id. § 1691(d); Molina
V. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 635 F. App'x 618, 624 (11th Cir.
2015).
of
An adverse action in turn "means a denial or revocation
credit,
a
change
in
the
terms
of
an
existing
credit
arrangement, or a refusal to grant credit in substantially the
amount or on substantially the terms requested."
1691(d)(6).
15 U.S.C. §
Plaintiffs provide no evidence that Defendant took
an adverse action against Plaintiffs or that such an action was
based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status,
or national origin. Thus, summary judgment is appropriate.^
Upon
due
consideration.
Judgment (doc. 7) is GRANTED.
Defendant's
Motion
for
Summary
The Clerk is directed to enter
JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant and CLOSE this case.
^ Plaintiffs' also assert a claim for punitive damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. §
51-12-5.1.
"Punitive damages may not be recovered where there is no
entitlement to compensatory damages." Barnes v. White Cnty. Bank, 318 S.E.2d
74, 76 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984).
Because Plaintiffs' substantive claims have
failed, so too must their claim for punitive damages.
ORDER
ENTERED
at
Augusta,
Georgia,
this
of
2018.
lEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOOTHE
DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?