Boyd v. Wells Fargo Financial Bank, Inc., 2:16-cv-00151

Background

In Sept. 2009 Boyd sued "Wells Fargo Financial Bank, Inc." (WFFBI) in Glynn County state court, alleging false credit-reporting in August 2009 that harmed his ability to obtain a loan.
Service was attempted by delivering the complaint to Mary Glembin, an employee; WFFBI never appeared and a default judgment entered in 2014.
WFBNA (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) later moved to set aside the default; the state court vacated the default in 2016 and allowed Boyd to add WFBNA as a party. The case was removed to federal court.
Boyd asserted FCRA and defamation claims based on the 2009 conduct; FCRA has a two-year statute of limitations. Boyd added WFBNA in 2016 — well past two years after the events.
WFBNA moved for summary judgment arguing (inter alia) that Boyd’s claims were time-barred and did not relate back under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c); the court found WFBNA lacked timely notice and that Boyd did not establish the required mistake-of-identity showing.
The court granted summary judgment for WFBNA and requested briefing on whether WFFBI is a legally existent entity capable of being sued.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Boyd's claims against WFBNA relate back to the 2009 complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)?	The claims arise from the same transaction and relate back; timely notice existed because Glembin received the complaint in 2009.	Relation back fails: no notice to WFBNA within 90 days; Glembin was not authorized to accept service; plaintiff cannot show mistake of identity.	No — relation back fails; claims against WFBNA are time-barred; summary judgment for WFBNA.
Was service on Glembin sufficient to impute notice to WFBNA?	Glembin received the complaint, so WFBNA had notice.	Glembin was a mere employee (Loan Servicing Specialist) not authorized to accept service; her knowledge is not imputed to the corporation.	No — Glembin was not an authorized agent; notice did not occur within the Rule 15(c) period.
Can Boyd satisfy the Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) “mistake” requirement (that defendant knew but for a mistake it would have been sued)?	Implied from the nature of the allegations against a Wells Fargo entity.	Complaint lacked detail tying communications to WFBNA; no evidence WFBNA knew it would have been sued but for a mistake.	No — plaintiff provided no evidence WFBNA knew it was the proper defendant.
Is WFFBI a legal entity capable of being sued (status left open)?	Plaintiff effectively concedes WFFBI may be nonexistent.	Defendant contends WFFBI is nonexistent.	Court ordered parties to submit evidence within 7 days on whether WFFBI is a legal entity; unresolved in this order.

Key Cases Cited

FindWhat Inv'r Grp. v. FindWhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2011) (defining materiality and genuine dispute standards for summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard and definition of "genuine" dispute)
Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broad. Serv., Inc., 234 F.3d 501 (11th Cir. 2000) (view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant's initial burden to show absence of evidence supporting nonmovant)
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 1993) (how nonmovant may show record contains overlooked evidence or produce additional evidence)
Morris v. Ross, 663 F.2d 1032 (11th Cir. 1981) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)