Not showing up for a deposition is a big no-no in the legal world and a plaintiff in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case is going to have to pay because of it after the District Court judge not only granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but also for sanctions against the plaintiff.
The Background: Some of you may remember that I wrote about this case a month ago, after the Magistrate judge recommended the motions for summary judgment in favor of the defendant and sanctions against the plaintiff be granted. In case you don’t remember, or need a quick refresher …
- The plaintiff filed suit against the defendant saying it was trying to collect on a $15,000 credit card account that she did not open, a claim she maintained through several legal proceedings and in reports filed with the Federal Trade Commission alleging her identity was stolen. She changed her tune when the defendant made available recordings of two phone calls between the plaintiff and the creditor where she admitted the account was hers. The plaintiff has not been able to explain why she forgot that the account was hers.
- In seeking to get to the bottom of the situation, the plaintiff was scheduled to be deposed, but neither her nor her attorney showed up. Defense counsel was there, though.
The Ruling: In fighting both the summary judgment and the sanctions motions, the plaintiff failed to offer any legal reason why the motions should not be granted, instead choosing to ask the District Court judge not to adopt the Magistrate judge’s recommendations.
- Judge Charles A. Pannell, Jr. of the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia doesn’t have any good quotes or comments in his ruling, preferring to make short work of the decisions to grant both summary judgment motions.
