United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Honorable David C. Nye United States District Court Judge
before the Court is Eastern Idaho Credit Union's (EICU)
Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 23. Additionally, EICU's
Motion to Strike (Dkt. 26) is also ripe for review. This
Motion was filed in conjunction with EICU's reply to
summary judgment and deals with matters related to the
Plaintiff's Response (Dkt. 24) to the Motion.
reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the
facts and legal arguments are adequately presented.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will
decide the motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons set forth below, the
Court GRANTS both Motions.
facts of this case are relatively straightforward. D.J. and
Katie Egan (Egans) are longtime members of EIC U.Sometime
during October 2012, EICU began reporting to the credit
reporting agency Experian that the Egans had filed for
bankruptcy in July 2012. This however was false. The Egans
had not declared bankruptcy, but for reasons unknown (then
and now) EICU mistakenly reported that the Egans had sought
bankruptcy protection earlier that summer.
result of this negative credit report, when the Egans closed
on a construction loan with the Bank of Commerce that same
month they were subject to a substantially higher interest
rate. The Egans now seek damages.
October 7, 2015, the Egans initiated this lawsuit against
EICU. The Egans' sole cause of action is this case
asserts that EICU violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
originally moved for summary judgment on July 11, 2016.
Thereafter the parties stipulated to an extension of time to
file response/reply briefs. Dkt. 19. Based upon this delay,
and the desire to avoid dated statistical tracking of case
motions, the Honorable Ronald E. Bush denied the Motion for
Summary Judgment without prejudice and directed EICU to
refile the motion immediately. Dkt. 22. EICU acted
accordingly and, thereafter, the parties followed the
standard briefing schedule.
conjunction with its final brief on summary judgment, EICU
also filed a Motion to Strike. Dkt. 26. This motion sought to
strike portions of the affidavit of D.J. Egan and
corresponding attachments, which were filed in support of the
Egans' objection to summary judgment. Dkt. 24. The Motion
to Strike and the Motion for Summary Judgment are intertwined
and will be addressed simultaneously.
judgment is proper “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.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
56(a). This Court's role at summary judgment is not
“to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Zetwick v. Cty. of Yolo, 850 F.3d 436,
441 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
considering a motion for summary judgment, this Court must
“view the facts in the non-moving party's
favor.” Id. To defeat a motion for summary
judgment, the respondent need only present evidence upon
which “a reasonable juror drawing all inferences in
favor of the respondent could return a verdict in [his or
her] favor.” Id. (citation omitted).
Accordingly, this Court must enter summary judgment if a
party “fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party's
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986). The respondent cannot simply rely on an
unsworn affidavit or the pleadings to defeat a motion for
summary judgment; rather the respondent must set forth the
“specific facts, ” supported by evidence, with
“reasonable particularity” that precludes summary
judgment. Far Out Productions, Inc. v. Oskar, 247
F.3d 986, 997 (9th Cir. 2001).