Midland Funding LLC v. Sotolongo
325 P.3d 871
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Midland filed a debt-collection complaint against Sotolongo on September 22, 2010 for breach of a credit contract and sought amounts due, interest, and fees.
- Sotolongo, pro se, denied owing the debt in a letter dated October 14 and demanded information; Midland filed a default certificate on October 20 after Sotolongo failed to answer timely.
- The district court treated Sotolongo's October 14 letter as his answer and did not issue a protective-order or excusal from discovery; Midland served discovery requests on Sotolongo October 19.
- Sotolongo failed to timely respond to discovery; he later sought to delay discovery until Midland responded to his October 14 letter, but no order was issued.
- Midland moved for summary judgment on December 28 based on Sotolongo’s failure to deny admissions that would prove the breach.
- Sotolongo appeared with counsel in February 2011 and amended his pro se answer, adding Johnson Mark, LLC and certain attorneys as third-party defendants and asserting FDCPA and UCSPA claims.
- Midland filed a second summary-judgment motion on July 13, 2011; Sotolongo sought time extensions and later opposed; Johnson Mark also moved for summary judgment on Consumer Claims; Sotolongo filed supplemental materials and cross-motions.
- A hearing occurred on February 16, 2012; the court struck Sotolongo’s supplemental and post-hearing memos for lack of leave and granted Midland’s MSJ on the breach claim and Johnson Mark’s MSJ on the Consumer Claims; Midland was awarded attorney fees.
- Sotolongo argued Rule 60(b) relief and contested the attorney-fees award; the district court denied those motions; Sotolongo timely appealed April 11, 2012.
- On appeal, the court vacated the attorney-fees award due to premature entry of judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion; otherwise the district court’s rulings were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether striking Sotolongo's supplemental memorandum was an abuse of discretion | Sotolongo argues district court abused by striking his memo while not striking Midland's late filing. | Midland contends the court acted within discretion for failure to obtain leave and due process rules. | No abuse; district court acted within discretion to strike. |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Midland's breach-of-contract claim | Sotolongo contends genuine issues exist about the amount owed and the validity of Midland's affidavits. | Midland asserts the affidavits established entitlement and Sotolongo did not properly controvert facts. | Summary judgment upheld; no genuine issue about amount due after proper procedural default. |
| Whether Johnson Mark is entitled to summary judgment on Sotolongo's FDCPA and UCSPA claims | Sotolongo argues violations including misrepresentation of debt amount, improper subpoena, and other alleged FDCPA/UCSPA violations. | Johnson Mark contends no violations proven under FDCPA/UCSPA; verification and actions were not unlawful given controlling authority. | Summary judgment affirmed for Johnson Mark on FDCPA and UCSPA claims. |
| Whether Midland's attorney-fee award was premature and improper | Sotolongo argues the district court erred by awarding fees before he could object under rule 7 and contract terms. | Midland claims rule 7 timing does not bind the district court and that fees were authorized by contract. | District court abused discretion; award vacated; remand for reconsideration consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc., 952 P.2d 1058 (Utah 1998) (abuse of discretion review standard for strikes)
- Francis v. State, 2018 UT 65 (Utah) (motion to strike within district court discretion)
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (evidentiary burden on movant in summary judgment when burden at trial)
- Draper City v. Estate of Bernardo, 888 P.2d 1097 (Utah 1995) (one sworn statement creates issue of fact)
- Clark v. Capital Credit & Collection Servs., Inc., 460 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2006) (debt verification relies on creditor's amounts; no independent investigation duty)
- Henshaw v. Estate of King, 2007 UT App 378 (Utah) (rule 7 timing applies to parties, not trial court; entry of proposed order)
- Posner v. Equity Title Ins. Agency, Inc., 222 P.3d 775 (Utah 2009) (trial court discretion in case management)
- Ross v. Epic Eng'g, PC, 307 P.3d 576 (Utah 2013) (prejudice from procedural error and substantial rights)