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.

Thomas Bolick, et al v. Dfs Services LLC

September 16, 2011

THOMAS BOLICK, ET AL., PLAINTIFF,
v.
DFS SERVICES LLC, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rufe, J.

MEMORANDUM ORDER & OPINION

Before the Court are Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant DB Servicing Corporation ("Discover"), successor to Defendant DFS Services LLC, et al., and a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by pro se Plaintiff Thomas Bolick. Because matters outside the pleadings have been presented to the Court by both Parties, the Court will also treat the pending Motion to Dismiss as one for Summary Judgment. *fn1

I. B ACKGROUND

The basis of this lawsuit is pro se Bolick's claim that Defendant Discover, the servicer of his Discover business credit card, falsely reported to Equifax Information Systems LLC ("Equifax"), a credit reporting agency, that Bolick's account was past due, with a status of "charge-off." *fn2

This dispute arose out of a $410.26 purchase from Linens N' Things, a now out-of-business home goods store. *fn3 Bolick made the purchase using a credit card issued by non-party
Discover Bank ("the Bank") in June 2008. *fn4 At some point after the purchase, Bolick contacted Discover, claiming that he was entitled to a refund for the $410.26 charge because the goods purchased were never delivered. *fn5 The only document Bolick presented in support of his claim was an illegible document he claimed was a return receipt for the purchase. *fn6 Discover contacted Linens N' Things to investigate the claim. In response to Discover's query, the store submitted a receipt reflecting that the purchase was valid. *fn7 On that basis, Discover refused to credit Bolick's account. Because Discover refused to credit his account, Bolick stopped making the required payments towards his Discover business credit card entirely. *fn8

Bolick officially disputed the accuracy of his credit account balance and status with Equifax on three occasions. Each time, Equifax notified Discover, and Discover investigated the account. After each investigation, Discover reported to Equifax that the account's balance and delinquent status were accurate. *fn9

On February 28, 2010, after nine months of non-payment, the balance of Plaintiff's Discover account ($952.14) was charged off. *fn10 That month, Bolick filed a complaint against non-party Discover Bank ("the Bank") in the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that he did not owe the disputed sum, and obtained a default judgment on March 26, 2010 in the amount of $2,084.50. *fn11 Subsequently, the Bank challenged the Default Judgment against it by filing a Writ of Certiorari Review in the Northumberland County Court of Common Pleas, asserting that the Default Judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Common Pleas agreed, and vacated the default judgment on February 7, 2011. *fn12

Bolick's nine-count complaint alleges that the defendants have violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act ("FDCPA"), Pennsylvania's Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act ("FCEUA"), Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law ("UTPCPL" ), and committed several torts against Bolick, including defamation, common law fraud, civil extortion, negligence, and invasion of privacy.*fn13

II. S TANDARD OF R REVIEW

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), summary judgment is proper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all inferences in favor of that party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. *fn14 A fact is "material" if it could affect the outcome of the suit, given the applicable substantive law. *fn15 A dispute about a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence presented "is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." *fn16

A party moving for summary judgment has the initial burden of supporting its motion by reference to admissible evidence. *fn17 If this initial requirement is satisfied, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. The nonmoving party may meet this burden either by submitting evidence that negates an essential element of the moving party's claims, or by demonstrating that the movant's factual evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of its claims. *fn18 The facts the non-movant relies on for these purposes also must be demonstrated by admissible evidence.*fn19

In considering a summary judgment motion, the Court does not weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations; "the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable ...


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.