Hernandez v. Bank of America, N.A.
2:14-cv-01171
D. Nev.Sep 27, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Perla Hernandez owned a Las Vegas property secured by a 2005 note and deed of trust; she defaulted in February 2008 and the property was sold at trustee's sale in March 2013.
- The Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) holds the note; Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) is the loan servicer and acted on BNYM's behalf after servicer mergers and assignments.
- Plaintiff received a January 2, 2014 notice regarding the loan, disputed the debt to CRAs in July 2014, and served a debt validation notice; BANA responded identifying BNYM.
- Plaintiff previously sued BANA/ReconTrust in 2013 alleging the debt was invalid; that suit was dismissed with prejudice for bad faith and the court held the loan was valid.
- Plaintiff brought claims here under the FCRA (§1681i), Nevada negligent hiring/supervision, and the FDCPA (various sections), seeking damages and declaratory/injunctive relief.
- Court held a summary-judgment hearing and granted BANA’s motion, denying Plaintiff’s motion; case closed September 27, 2016.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel bars relitigation of the debt's existence | Hernandez contends this case raises different claims than prior suit and the debt question is distinct | BANA argues the prior judgment resolved the debt's validity and precludes relitigation | Court: collateral estoppel applies; debt validity already decided against Hernandez |
| Whether reporting to credit agencies violated the FCRA (§1681i) | Hernandez contends BANA reported and pursued a debt she does not owe | BANA contends its reporting was accurate (default existed) and reinvestigation was reasonable | Court: reporting was accurate; FCRA claim fails |
| Whether Plaintiff produced evidence of negligent hiring/supervision | Hernandez alleges negligent hiring/supervision of BANA employees | BANA argues there is no admissible evidence supporting negligent supervision or training claims | Court: no admissible evidence; summary judgment for BANA |
| Whether BANA violated the FDCPA | Hernandez cites a dunning notice and contends BANA attempted to collect an invalid debt | BANA contends the notice was informational re: foreclosure and not an unlawful debt-collection act; in any event, the debt is valid | Court: Hernandez failed to show FDCPA violation or provide adequate evidence; claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment standard)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (no genuine issue when record cannot lead a rational trier of fact for nonmoving party)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Fritz Cos., 210 F.3d 1099 (movant's burdens on summary judgment in Ninth Circuit)
- Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318 (collateral estoppel elements in Ninth Circuit)
- Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876 (FCRA §1681i requires showing of inaccuracy)
- Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (FDCPA prohibits certain debt-collection practices)