The joke about lawyers is that their answer to any question is never a straight answer — it always depends. Well, maybe the joke applies to judges, too. After partially granting motions for summary judgment to both the plaintiff and the defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case, the judge has partially granted and partially denied the defendant’s motion for reconsideration.
The background: This case stems from a dispute over a default judgment obtained by the defendant in Nevada state court back in 2009. The defendant obtained a default judgment for the amount owed, and in 2022, renewed it.
- The plaintiff learned of this judgment when the defendant placed a lien on her home, which prevented her from selling it. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the FDCPA, alleging that the defendant had used unfair and deceptive tactics to obtain and renew the judgment.
- Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the District Court for the District of Nevada granted partial summary judgment to both parties, uling that while the defendant’s actions in obtaining a default judgment were improper, the subsequent attempts to collect the debt were permissible under the law.
The ruling: The defendant filed the motion for reconsideration primarily arguing that the court had erred in several aspects of its previous ruling, such as issuing contradictory conclusions regarding the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims, that the claims were time-barred under the statute, and that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the claims, among others.
- Judge Navarro granted the defendant’s request in part. A key aspect of the ruling was the decision to allow the plaintiff’s FDCPA claims, relating to the defendant’s conduct in obtaining the judgment, to proceed, as there remained a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the debt was owed. The judge also ruled that the defendant’s actions in attempting to collect the judgment post-judgment were legal, reinforcing the distinction between obtaining a judgment and enforcing it.
