Grandberry v. Medical-Commercial Audit, Inc.
Filing
66
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion for Leave to Amend, [Doc. No. 44 ], is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Strike is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 4/4/19. (KJS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
NAKEITRA GRANDBERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICAL-COMMERCIAL AUDIT, INC.,
d/b/a MCA MANAGEMENT,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 4:17CV2531 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Responses, [Doc. No. 44], and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, [46]. For the reasons
set forth below, the Motion for Leave will be granted and the Motion to Strike will
be denied.
Facts and Background
This case arises out of alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”) with respect to collection efforts against Plaintiff. The
collection efforts concerned an alleged debt owed by Plaintiff to Western
Anesthesiology.
Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in this Court on October 5, 2017. She
alleges that Defendant’s attempts to collect on the account violated the FDCPA.
The collection activities were with regard to an alleged consumer debt for medical
services incurred by Plaintiff with the original creditor, Western Anesthesiology.
Violation I alleges that a letter sent by Defendant was false and misleading
in that Defendant stated it would report Plaintiff to credit bureaus if it did not hear
from Plaintiff within 15 days of the letter, when Defendant never reported the debt
to the credit bureaus. Violation II alleges Defendant engaged in false, deceptive,
misleading, and unfair debt collection practices when it directed Plaintiff to
Defendant’s website for payment and Plaintiff discovered that Defendant charged
consumers a $5.00 convenience fee for payments made through its website.
Plaintiff claims “Defendant’s debt collection efforts attempted and/or directed
towards Plaintiff violate various provisions of the FDCPA, including but not
limited to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10), 1692f and 1692f(1).”
Discussion
Defendant seeks to amend its responses to Plaintiff’s request for admissions
because Defendant’s counsel made a mistake. Rather than denying that Defendant
credit reported Plaintiff’s account to Equifax and TransUnion during the months of
December 2016, January 2017, and February 2017, counsel mistakenly responded
“admit.” This error was discovered upon the reading of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. Counsel promptly moved to amend.
2
Plaintiff, in her response to the Motion for Leave and in her Motion to
Strike, argues bad faith and intentional withholding of the corrected admissions.
Nothing in the record supports these claims. In fact, Defendant’s counsel has
submitted his affidavit wherein he avers he made the claimed mistakes
unintentionally. Defendant has also submitted the affidavit of Julie Repa,
Defendant’s office manager. Ms. Repa avers that Defendant’s procedure is as
follows: “scheduled to be credit reported” means a debt will be credit reported
during the next cycle of credit reporting, which typically occurred in 45 days.
Further, Ms. Repa detailed that once a debt is scheduled to be reported,
Defendant’s collection software determines the exact date a debt will be credit
reported based on the age of the debt from the time of delinquency and when the
debt was placed with Defendant for collections.
Moreover, the record establishes that Plaintiff was aware of the credit
reporting. In her December 13, 2016 Letter disputing Defendant’s collection
account, Plaintiff disputed the “collection account on [her] credit report.”
The situation currently before the Court is not the typical attempt to change
previously given testimony. Admittedly, counsel made an error in answering the
Requests; Defendant itself is not trying to change its answers. Notwithstanding the
errors, Plaintiff is not prejudiced by allowing the amendments. Plaintiff was aware
of the credit reporting as shown in the letter she sent to Defendant disputing the
3
bill. Plaintiff should not be allowed a windfall by a mistake made by counsel when
the underlying facts demonstrate that Defendant did send the report to Equifax and
TransUnion. The Motion to Strike will be denied and the Motion to Amend will
be granted.
Conclusion
The interests of justice require allowance of the Motion to Amend as
discussed herein. In light of this ruling, the Court will allow the parties to submit
supplemental briefs regarding their respective motions for summary judgment
within 7 days from the date of this Opinion, Memorandum and Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend,
[Doc. No. 44], is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied.
Dated this 4th day of April, 2019.
___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
5
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?