Fujita v. The Best Service Company
- Saundra Armstrong
- 4:19-cv-00580
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 6
In Fujita v. The Best Service Company, Judge Armstrong granted Harris’s summary-judgment motion because Fujita lacked evidence supporting her credit-reporting and debt-collection claims.
Keiki Kay Mitsu Fujita’s claims against Harris & Zide were resolved against her. Harris & Zide was terminated as a party-defendant; the opinion states that Hunt & Henriques remained but does not state the outcome of the claims against it.
What happened
In Fujita v. The Best Service Company, Keiki Kay Mitsu Fujita represented herself in claims against several defendants under the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Only Harris & Zide and Hunt & Henriques remained as defendants when the court considered Harris’s motion. The dispute involved a delinquent Bank of America account, debt-validation requests, and alleged credit-reporting and collection misconduct.
The court found that Harris had responded to both of Fujita’s requests for debt validation. It also found no evidence that Harris communicated with a credit-reporting agency, reported information to one, or called Fujita. Fujita did not timely answer Harris’s requests for admission, so those facts were treated as conclusively established for this case.
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted Harris & Zide’s motion for summary judgment and ordered that Harris be terminated as a party-defendant. The opinion did not decide the claims against Hunt & Henriques.
The detailed version
- Fujita v. The Best Service Company · No. 4:19-cv-00580
- Saundra Armstrong
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
Keiki Kay Mitsu Fujita filed the action without a lawyer. The complaint asserted five claims: one under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), three under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and one under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act against The Best Service Company only. The opinion states that only Harris & Zide and Hunt & Henriques remained as party-defendants.
Harris & Zide is described as a law firm engaged in debt collection. It received from Bank of America a delinquent credit account belonging to Fujita, in the amount of $2,521.18. Harris sent Fujita a payment-demand letter, received her requests for debt validation, and responded to both requests. Harris later filed a debt-collection lawsuit for Bank of America in Contra Costa County Superior Court. That court entered judgment for Bank of America in the amount of $2,521.08, plus $354.50 in court costs.
During this federal case, Harris served Fujita with requests for admission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36. Fujita did not respond by the deadline. The court therefore treated the matters in those requests as admitted and conclusively established for purposes of this action.
FCRA claim
Fujita claimed that Harris violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by failing to investigate and report the results of an investigation after a credit-reporting agency requested one. The court explained that this duty arises only when a credit-reporting agency notifies the furnisher of disputed information; a consumer’s direct notice is not enough.
The court found no evidence that any credit-reporting agency had made such a request to Harris. Harris stated that it had no communication with any credit-reporting agency concerning Fujita, and Fujita’s unanswered requests for admission conclusively established that fact. The court held that Fujita lacked a factual or legal basis for the FCRA claim and granted summary judgment to Harris on that claim.
FDCPA claims
Fujita alleged that Harris violated the FDCPA by failing to validate the Bank of America debt, reporting false information to credit-reporting agencies, and harassing her by telephone. Harris submitted documentation showing that it timely responded to both validation requests. Harris also stated that it had not provided information to any credit-reporting agency and had made no telephone calls to Fujita.
The court found that Fujita offered no evidence contradicting Harris’s showing. The unanswered requests for admission also established the relevant facts. The court concluded that Fujita lacked a factual or legal basis for her FDCPA claims and granted summary judgment to Harris on those claims.
Disposition
The court granted Harris & Zide’s motion for summary judgment. It ordered that Harris be terminated as a party-defendant in the action. The opinion does not state a disposition of the claims against Hunt & Henriques.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.