Blick v. Shapiro & Brown, LLP, 3:16-cv-00070

Plaintiff Harold Blick (pro se) challenges a foreclosure sale and moved for summary judgment on two claims: breach of contract against Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (DBNTC) and an FDCPA § 1692g(b) claim against Shapiro & Brown, LLP.
The breach claim alleges DBNTC failed to provide the deed-of-trust pre-acceleration notice required before acceleration/foreclosure.
The FDCPA claim alleges the debt collector failed to validate the debt after Blick disputed it in writing, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1692g(b).
Blick bore the initial burden on summary judgment to produce admissible evidence establishing each claim’s elements and that no genuine dispute of material fact existed.
Court found Blick’s cited discovery responses and pleadings did not constitute admissible evidence proving lack of notice or lack of validation, and excluded new exhibits submitted with his reply.
Because Blick failed to make the required initial showing for either claim, the court denied his motion for summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DBNTC breached the deed of trust by failing to provide pre-acceleration notice	Blick: DBNTC did not provide the required pre-acceleration notice, so acceleration/foreclosure was improper	DBNTC: discovery responses and prior record show plaintiff was aware mortgage had been accelerated; objections to discovery limit admissions	Denied — Blick failed to produce admissible evidence establishing lack of pre-acceleration notice or entitlement to judgment as a matter of law
Whether the debt collector violated 15 U.S.C. §1692g(b) by continuing collection without validating the debt after dispute	Blick: He disputed the debt in writing and never received validation, so collection should have ceased	DBNTC/Shapiro: discovery responses do not admit failure to validate; directed plaintiff to the note and asserted enforcement rights; no admissible proof of non-validation	Denied — Blick did not present admissible evidence showing validation was not provided or entitlement to summary judgment

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden and standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine dispute/materiality standard for summary judgment)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (drawing inferences for nonmovant on summary judgment)
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Simmons, 275 Va. 112 (Va. 2008) (pre-acceleration notice requirement under deed of trust)
Martin v. Cavalier Hotel Corp., 48 F.3d 1343 (4th Cir. 1995) (summary judgment evidentiary limits on briefs)
Seay v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 339 F.3d 454 (6th Cir. 2003) (court should not rely on new evidence submitted with a reply brief)