Jones et al v. Wells Fargo Principal Lending, LLC, No. 6:2016cv00129 - Document 9 (S.D. Ga. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 7 Motion for Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant. Plaintiffs failed to respond to Defendant's motion for summary judgment and provided no evidence that Defendant took an adverse action against Plaintiffs. Because Plaintiffs' substantive claims have failed, so too must their claim for punitive damages. This case is closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/23/2018. (jlh) Modified on 4/23/2018 (jlh).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones et al v. Wells Fargo Principal Lending, LLC Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION BRACHEL ROGERS JONES and CHARLES * JONES, * * Plaintiffs, * * V. * CV 616-129 * WELLS FARGO PRINCIPAL LENDING, * LLC, * 5 Defendant. * ORDER Before Judgment. the Court (Doc. 7.) is Defendant's Motion for Summary The Clerk has given Plaintiffs notice of the summary judgment motion and the summary judgment rules, of the right to file affidavits or other materials in opposition, and the consequences of default. (Doc. 8.) Therefore, the notice requirements of Griffith v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 822, 825 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam), have been satisfied. have failed judgment; to with respond the time to Defendant's for filing motion materials Plaintiffs for in summary opposition having expired, the motion is ripe for consideration. Thus, Defendant's SDGa. ("Failure motion to respond is deemed within the unopposed. applicable LR time 7.5, period shall indicate that there is no opposition to a motion."). For the following reasons. Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROUND This case presumably revolves around Defendant Wells Fargo Principal Lending, LLC's "processing" of Plaintiffs' mortgage loan application. Plaintiffs (Doc. initiated this 1, at action 5.) in On the August 18, Magistrate 2016, Court of Bulloch County, Georgia, alleging that Defendant violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1961 et seg. and Georgia's Fraudulent Misrepresentation Statute, O.C.G.A. § 23-2-52. (Id.) complaint to Defendant this subsequently Court. (Doc. 1.) removed On January Plaintiffs' 13, 2017, Defendant served a request for admission, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Plaintiffs did not within thirty days. 36. answer (Howard or (Id.) object Aff., Doc. to 7-2, Defendant's H 3.) request Defendant subsequently moved for summary judgment on November 29, 2017. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendant's motion and have apparently not participated in this case since its removal. II. LEGAL STANDARD A motion for summary judgment will be granted if there is no disputed material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). they could affect the results of the case. Facts are material if Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The court must view facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all inferences in its favor. Ltd. V. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The movant initially bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate the absence of a disputed material Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). fact. Celotex Corp. v. The movant must also show no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party on any of the essential elements. Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993). The movant may meet this standard by showing "that party an adverse evidence to support the fact." cannot produce admissible Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B). If the movant carries its burden, the non-moving party must come forward with significant, probative evidence showing there is a material fact in dispute. Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1116. The non-movant must respond with affidavits or other forms of evidence provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. 1116 n.3. The non-movant cannot survive Id. at summary judgment relying on its pleadings or conclusory statements. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032, 1033-34 (11th Cir. 1981). by Morris v. After the non- movant has met this burden, summary judgment is granted only if "the combined body of evidence is still such that the movant would be entitled to a directed verdict at trial - that is, such that no reasonable jury could find for the non-movant." Fitzpatrick, 2 F.3d at 1116. III. As a Defendant preliminary satisfied material fact. for Admission admissions are matter, its DISCUSSION the burden of Court must decide showing the whether absence of a Defendant supports its motion with the Request it served on Plaintiffs. automatically deemed [R]equests admitted if not for answered within 30 days, and that the matters therein are conclusively established amendment unless of the the court on admissions." motion United permits States v. withdrawal or 2204 Barbara Lane, 960 F.2d 126, 129 (11th Cir.1992) (internal quotations omitted). Nevertheless, a party may not request an admission of a legal conclusion. In re Tobkin, 578 F. App'x 962, 964 (11th Cir. 2014). Every question in Defendant's Request for Admission is a legal conclusion that cannot be admitted through Rule 36. Request for Admission, Doc. 7-3, IH 1-10.) (See Yet Defendant also points out that there is no evidence in the record to support Plaintiffs' claims. By doing so. Defendant has satisfied its burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of fact. Fed. R. 56(c)(1)(B) (the moving party's burden may be satisfied by showing ''that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact."). Accordingly, the burden has shifted to Plaintiffs to support the essential elements of their claims with affirmative evidence. Plaintiffs' complaint includes an allegation that Defendant violated Georgia's Fraudulent O.C.G.A. 23-2-52 and the ECOA. Misrepresentation (Doc. 1, at 5.) Statute, Because neither claim is supported by evidence in the record, summary judgment is appropriate. A. Plaintiffs' Fraudulent Misrepresentation Claim To state plaintiff a claim must for prove: fraudulent "(1) misrepresentation, that the defendant the made representations; (2) that at the time he knew they were false; (3) that he made them with the intention and purpose of deceiving the plaintiff; (4) that the plaintiff relied on the representations; and (5) that the plaintiff sustained the alleged loss and damage as the proximate result of their having been made." Here, Bacote v. Wyckoff, 310 S.E.2d 520, 523 (Ga. 1984). Plaintiffs these elements. have failed to provide evidence for any of Because there is no evidence in the record to support any element of Plaintiffs' fraudulent misrepresentation claim, summary judgment is appropriate. B. Plaintiffs' Equal Credit Opportunity Act Claim ECOA makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against an applicant on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin." § 1691(a). 15 U.S.C. To be held liable, a creditor must first take an "adverse action" against the plaintiff. Id. § 1691(d); Molina V. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 635 F. App'x 618, 624 (11th Cir. 2015). of An adverse action in turn "means a denial or revocation credit, a change in the terms of an existing credit arrangement, or a refusal to grant credit in substantially the amount or on substantially the terms requested." 1691(d)(6). 15 U.S.C. § Plaintiffs provide no evidence that Defendant took an adverse action against Plaintiffs or that such an action was based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Thus, summary judgment is appropriate.^ Upon due consideration. Judgment (doc. 7) is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion for Summary The Clerk is directed to enter JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant and CLOSE this case. ^ Plaintiffs' also assert a claim for punitive damages pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 51-12-5.1. "Punitive damages may not be recovered where there is no entitlement to compensatory damages." Barnes v. White Cnty. Bank, 318 S.E.2d 74, 76 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). Because Plaintiffs' substantive claims have failed, so too must their claim for punitive damages. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this of 2018. lEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOOTHE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
