Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DJ v. East Idaho Credit Union

United States District Court, D. Idaho

September 29, 2017

DJ and KATIE EGAN, a married couple, Plaintiffs,
v.
EAST IDAHO CREDIT UNION, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Honorable David C. Nye United States District Court Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is Eastern Idaho Credit Union's (EICU) Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 23.[1] 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.

         Having 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.

         II. BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         The 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.

         As a 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.

         B. Procedural Background

         On 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.

         EICU 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.

         In 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.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         Summary 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).

         In 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).

         IV. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.