FRITZ v. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 36 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and to Set Aside Court's Judgment. Signed by Judge Terrence F. McVerry on 10/7/2013. (rjw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NORMA DIANE FRITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) 2:12-cv-1725
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Pending before the Court is the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO SET
ASIDE COURT’S JUDGMENT (ECF No. 36) filed by Plaintiff, Norma Diane Fritz. Defendant,
Capital Management Services, LP, filed a MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF No. 37). Accordingly, the motion
is ripe for disposition.
I. Background
The facts of this case are more fully set forth in this Court Memorandum Opinion and
Order of Court of August 29, 2013, and are incorporated herein. See Mem. Op. and Order 1-3,
Aug. 29, 2013 (ECF No. 34). In short, Plaintiff was delinquent on her credit card payments to
Chase Bank (“Chase”). Chase retained Defendant’s collection services in order to collect the
debt. Defendant thereafter pulled Plaintiff’s credit report as part of the debt collection process.
Plaintiff, who is litigating pro se, brought suit on November 26, 2012, claiming that
Defendant pulled her credit report without a purpose authorized by the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, (“FCRA” or the “Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. Defendant moved for summary judgment
at the close of discovery. The Court granted Defendant’s motion on August 29, 2013,
concluding that a debt collector such as Defendant is permitted to obtain a consumer credit report
1

in order to assist in collecting on an outstanding debt. Mem. Op. and Order 6, Aug. 29, 2013
(ECF No. 34). Therefore, the Court held that there was no basis for imposing liability under the
FCRA. Id. The instant motion for reconsideration then followed.
II. Standard of Review
The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to “correct manifest errors of law or fact
or to present newly discovered evidence.” Max’s Seafood Cafe ex-rel Lou—Ann, Inc. v.
Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909
(3d Cir. 1985)). It is well-established that a party must overcome a high hurdle to succeed in
such a motion. A court should exercise its discretion to alter or amend its judgment only if the
movant demonstrates: (1) a change in the controlling law; (2) a clear error of law or fact or to
prevent manifest injustice; or (3) availability of new evidence not available when the judgment
was granted. See id. Motions for reconsideration are not intended to provide a “second bite at
the apple” or to provide a mechanism for a losing party to ask the Court to rethink its decision.
III. Discussion
Plaintiff contends that the Court’s decision was erroneous because the Court
misinterpreted the FCRA’s definition of “account,” which was added to the FCRA via the Fair
and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g). She further contends that
the Court erred in considering an affidavit submitted by Defendant and requests that it be
“stricken from the record.” Mot. for Recons. 2 (ECF No. 36). Defendant responds that Plaintiff
has not raised a cognizable basis for disturbing the Court’s decision. The Court agrees.
Plaintiff does not cite to any change in controlling law or newly discovered evidence.
Moreover, she does not assert that the Court made any clear error of law. She simply disagrees
with the Court’s statutory interpretation and analysis of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and asks

2

the Court to rethink its decision. This is not a valid basis for granting a motion for
reconsideration. Accordingly, the Court reaffirms its August 29, 2013, Memorandum Opinion
and Order of Court.
IV. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiff’s MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND TO SET ASIDE COURT’S JUDGMENT (ECF No. 36) will be DENIED. An appropriate
order follows.

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NORMA DIANE FRITZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LP,
Defendant.

)
)
)
) 2:12-cv-1725
)
)
)
)

ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2013, in accordance with the foregoing
Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff’s
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND TO SET ASIDE COURT’S JUDGMENT (ECF
No. 36) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:
s/Terrence F. McVerry
United States District Judge

cc:

NORMA DIANE FRITZ
5124 College Street
Finleyville, PA 15332
Richard J. Perr, Esquire
Email: [e-mail]