King v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. et al
Filing
25
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in the following order.Signed by District Judge R Leon Jordan on 4/23/13. (ABF)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
JENNIFER L. KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES
MANAGEMENT, INC., and CAPITAL ONE
BANK (USA), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 2:12-CV-314
MEMORANDUM OPINION
By order dated October 5, 2012, the court granted the unopposed motion to
dismiss filed by defendant AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc. Now before the court
is the motion for summary judgment [doc. 18] filed by the sole remaining defendant, Capital
One Bank (USA), National Association (“Capital One”). Plaintiff has responded to the
motion, expressly offering no opposition [doc. 24]. For the reasons that follow, Capital
One’s motion will be granted, and this case will be dismissed.
I.
Applicable Legal Standards
Capital One’s motion is brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56, which provides in pertinent part: “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant
shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(c) requires that “[a] party asserting that a fact cannot
be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion.” This can be done by citation to
materials in the record, which include depositions, documents, affidavits, stipulations, and
electronically-stored information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).
The movant must first demonstrate that the non-moving party has failed to
establish an essential element of that party’s case for which it bears the ultimate burden of
proof at trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). If the moving party
carries that initial burden of showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact in
dispute, the non-moving party must then present specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue
for trial. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87
(1986). In order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must
present significantly probative evidence in support of its complaint. See Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986).
II.
Analysis
Plaintiff owes, or owed, a debt on a Capital One credit card. According to the
complaint, Capital One violated 15 U.S.C. § 1637(b) of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”)
by failing to transmit monthly account statements to plaintiff from August 2011 through July
2012. Section 1637(b) requires that a creditor send a statement to its obligor “for each billing
cycle at the end of which there is an outstanding balance in that account or with respect to
2
which a finance charge is imposed . . . .”
However, as Capital One points out (and as plaintiff acknowledges at
paragraph 26 of her complaint), TILA’s Regulation Z provides that a “periodic statement
need not be sent for an account . . . if the creditor has charged off the account in accordance
with loan-loss provisions and will not charge any additional fees or interest on the account
. . . .” 12 C.F.R. § 226.5(b)(2)(i). Capital One has filed the March 8, 2013 affidavit of its
business analyst Ji Mei. That affidavit states that plaintiff’s debt was charged off in January
2009 and that no interest or fees have been posted to the account since February 2011.
In response, plaintiff offers only that she has no record of being informed that
the debt had been charged off, or that the adding of fees and interest had stopped. Plaintiff
goes on to concede, “Based on the her review [sic], Plaintiff, by and through counsel, states
that she is not opposed to Capital One’s Motion, or an order being entered by the Court
granting the motion.” [Doc. 24, p.2].
In light of plaintiff’s acquiescence, the motion will be granted. Moreover, the
court has considered the evidence and authority and finds no genuine issue of disputed
material fact. TILA did not require Capital One to send monthly statement to plaintiff
between August 2011 and July 2012 because the account had already been charged off and
no additional fees or interest were being added to the balance of the debt. For that additional
reason, Capital One’s motion will be granted.
3
III.
Conclusion
An order consistent with this opinion will be entered. This civil action will be
dismissed.
ENTER:
s/ Leon Jordan
United States District Judge
4
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?