United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Defendant Richland Holdings, Inc. d/b/a/
AcctCorp of Southern Nevada's (“AcctCorp”)
Second Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 82. For the
following reasons, the Court grants Defendant's Motion in
John and Christina Carter (“Plaintiffs”) sued
Defendants AcctCorp, RC Wiley aka RC Wiley Financial Services
(“RC Wiley”), Jerome R. Bowen, and Randall
Corporation dba Bowen Law Offices (“Bowen”) on
December 22, 2016. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on September 19, 2017, asserting claims under the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15
U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.; Chapter 598 of the
Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) for Deceptive
Trade Practices Act (“NVDTPA”); and civil
conspiracy. ECF No. 40. The amended complaint also
removed Defendant Jerome R. Bowen as a party Id.
remaining defendants moved for summary judgment on October
10, 2017. ECF Nos. 49, 50. Plaintiffs filed an opposition,
and Defendants filed a reply. ECF Nos. 51, 55. Defendants
then moved to produce specific documents on November 8, 2017.
ECF No. 54. After the motion to produce documents was fully
briefed, the Court granted Defendants' request on January
5, 2017. ECF Nos. 57-58, 62.
Court heard oral argument on the Motion for Summary Judgment
on August 23, 2018. ECF No. 69. During the hearing, the Court
orally granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants RC
Wiley and Bowen on all claims asserted against them. ECF No.
69. A written order issued on September 24, 2018. ECF No. 70.
The order allowed Plaintiffs to continue with their FDCPA
claims under Section 1692e, but only on violations that
occurred on or after December 23, 2015. Id. at
11-12. The Order also re-opened discovery for the limited
purpose of obtaining documents and potential deposition
testimony from credit reporting agencies for the periods of
January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017. Id. at 16. To
that end, the Court approved a scheduling order reopening
discovery for seventy-five days. ECF No. 71. On February 21,
2019, AcctCorp filed a second motion for summary judgment.
ECF Nos. 82, 83 (errata). The motion was fully briefed. ECF
Nos. 84, 87. The Court held a hearing regarding the motion on
September 6, 2019. ECF No. 92. This written order now
Court repeats its factual findings made in its written order
on September 24, 2018 and supplements them with relevant
discovery conducted after the Court's first written
Carter opened a credit account with RC Willey on May 5, 2004.
He added Christine Carter to the same credit account on July
26, 2004. The credit account was governed by the Revolving
Security Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement
allowed RC Willey to change the terms after giving Plaintiffs
the “minimum notice required by law” and allowed
the changes to apply to any existing account balance.
Plaintiffs also completed a Credit Application and Security
Agreement to update the existing credit account on May 27,
August 1, 2010, RC Willey changed the terms of the Agreement.
In the changed terms, RC Willey provided that the state in
which Plaintiffs reside-Nevada-would govern the
interpretation or enforcement of the Agreement in the event
that Defendants initiated any legal action associated with
the Agreement against Plaintiffs. RC Willey also included a
term that required Plaintiffs to “pay all of [RC
Willey's] costs of collection, including, but not limited
to, a collection agency fee assessed by a collection agency
and/or reasonable attorney fees, with or without suit,
together with all unpaid interest and court costs.”
Plaintiffs were sent the revised terms of the Agreement at
least forty-five days before the terms became effective.
Plaintiffs continued to charge the credit account until May
became delinquent on the credit account on March 11, 2014.
The account balance was then $8, 286.54. A contractual
collection fee of $4, 143.27 (50% of the account balance) was
added to the owed balance, bringing the total owed to $12,
429.81. RC Willey then assigned the account to AcctCorp.
filed an action (“State Action”) to collect the
delinquent balance from Plaintiffs in state court on April
11, 2014. Plaintiffs were allegedly served under Rule 4 of
the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure on April 23, 2014. A
process server served Jane Doe, described as a female of
suitable age and discretion that resided at the Carters'
residence, but who refused to give her full name. Bowen
served as AcctCorp counsel of record in the State Action. To
assist in ...