The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John E. Jones III
Before the Court in this action asserted under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p ("FDCPA") is Defendant Computer Credit, Inc.'s Motion ("CCI" or "Defendant") Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 16) and Plaintiff Jennifer Croftcheck's ("Croftcheck" or "Plaintiff") cross Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 22). For the reasons articulated in this Memorandum, we will grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. An appropriate Order closing this case shall enter.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the record establishes "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Initially, the moving party bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The movant meets this burden by pointing to an absence of evidence supporting an essential element as to which the non-moving party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Id. at 325. Once the moving party meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to show that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). An issue is "genuine" only if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party, and a factual dispute is "material" only if it might affect the outcome of the action under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc, 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).
In opposing summary judgment, the non-moving party "may not rely merely on allegations of denials in its own pleadings; rather, its response must ... set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2). The non-moving party "cannot rely on unsupported allegations, but must go beyond pleadings and provide some evidence that would show that there exists a genuine issue for trial." Jones v. United Parcel Serv., 214 F.3d 402, 407 (3d Cir. 2000). Arguments made in briefs "are not evidence and cannot by themselves create a factual dispute sufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion." Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Twp. of Lacey, 772 F.2d 1103, 1109-10 (3d Cir. 1985). However, the facts and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non- moving party. P.N. v. Clementon Bd. of Educ., 442 F.3d 848, 852 (3d Cir. 2006).
Summary judgment should not be granted when there is a disagreement about the facts or the proper inferences that a factfinder could draw from them. Peterson v. Lehigh Valley Dist. Council, 676 F.2d 81, 84 (3d Cir. 1982). Still, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; there must be a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247-48.
III. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a Complaint on April 28, 2010. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant*fn1 violated the FDCPA based on three debt-collection notices sent to Plaintiff regarding an outstanding medical bill owed to Pinnacle Health Hospital. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants violated the FDCPA in the following respects:
(a) § 1692d -- using conduct the natural consequence of whichis to harass or abuse the Plaintiff;
(b) § 1692e -- providing false, deceptive and misleading representations in a written communication;
(c) § 1692e(2) -- falsely representing the character, amount or legal status of the alleged debts;
(d) § 1692e(10) -- using any false representation or deceptive means to ...