Steward v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 48 defendants' motion for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a new motion for summary judgment, attaching all referenced exhibits by February 3, 2017. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 1/27/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Hilary Steward,

5

Plaintiff

2:15-cv-00408-JAD-NJK
6

v.

7

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. et al.,

Order Denying without Prejudice
Motion for Summary Judgment
[ECF No. 48]

8

Defendants

9
10

Hilary Steward brings this class-action Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) action

11

against CMRE Financial Services, Inc. and Healthcare Revenue Management Group (“HRMG”),

12

who left her two voicemails to collect on a third party’s hospital bill. Defendants move for summary

13

judgment, arguing that the FDCPA does not apply because HRMG is not a debt collector attempting

14

to collect a debt, and Steward is not a consumer with standing to bring suit. Though defendants cite

15

various exhibits in their summary-judgment motion, no exhibits were attached.

16

The bulk of Steward’s six-page response argues that defendants failed to carry their initial

17

burden of production because they attached no evidence to support their assertions, including that the

18

account in question was not in default at the time it was assigned to HRMG.1 On the heels of

19

Steward’s response pointing out these deficiencies, defendants filed an “errata” to their summary-

20

judgment motion, attaching the missing exhibits cited in their motion. Defendants’ belated proffer

21

deprived Steward of a fair opportunity to meaningfully address their arguments and supporting

22

evidence.

23

The court’s strong preference is to decide cases on their merits. Defendants’ out-of-order

24

filing frustrates that goal. In the interest of justice, I exercise my inherent power to manage the

25

docket and essentially order a do-over of the parties’ summary-judgment briefing. I therefore deny

26

without prejudice defendants’ summary-judgment motion and give them until February 3, 2017, to

27
28

1

See ECF No. 51.
Page 1 of 2

1

file a rule-compliant motion with all exhibits attached and properly authenticated. The briefing

2

schedule in LR 7-2 will then apply.

3
4

Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion for summary judgment

5

[ECF No. 48] is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of a new motion for summary judgment,

6

attaching all referenced exhibits by February 3, 2017.
2017.
0

7
8

_________________________________
______________________
__ _ _ _
_ _
Jennifer A. Dorsey
nifer Dorsey
r
United States District Judge
ted States
tate
tes
Judge
ud

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2