Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mygatt v. Medicredit, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

May 18, 2017

TIMBERLY MYGATT, Plaintiff,
v.
MEDICREDIT, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          RONNIE L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) and Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29). These matters are fully briefed and ready for disposition.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Timberly Mygatt ("Mygatt") incurred debt as a result of medical treatment she received at Missouri Delta Medical Center ("MDMC"). (Plaintiffs Statement of Uncontro verted Facts in Conjunction with her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("PSUMF"), ECF No. 31, ¶2); Defendant's Statement of Uncontro verted Material Facts ("DSUMF"), ECF No. 28, ¶l).

         Mygatt alleges Medicredit, Inc. ("Medicredit") served as the debt collector with respect to her debt owed to MDMC. (DSUMF, ¶8). Medicredit sent at least two collection letters to Mygatt in an attempt to collect the debt owed to MDMC. (PSUMF, ¶4). Medicredit mailed Mygatt a letter, dated December 24, 2014, listing a balance due of $300.23. (DSUMF, ¶9). Medicredit's December 24, 2014 letter did not disclose that the "Balance Due" of $300.23 would increase after the date of the letter. (PSUMF, ¶10). Medicredit mailed Mygatt a letter, dated April 25, 2015, listing a balance due of $308.20. (DSUMF, ¶10). Medicredit's April 25, 2015 letter did not disclose that the "Balance Due" would increase after the date of the letter. (PSUMF, ¶I8). As of April 25, 2015, Medicredit was assessing 9% interest per annum on Mygatt's debt. (PSUMF, ¶ 21). Mygatt alleges that on October 23, 2015, she called Medicredit and was informed that the balance due was $319.44. (DSUMF, ¶11). Mygatt was told that the amount from Medicredit's April 25, 2015 letter had increased because Medicredit was assessing interest on Plaintiffs MDMC debt. (PSUMF, ¶26). Every dollar of interest that accrued on the MDMC debt occurred after the accounts were placed with Medicredit for collections. (PSUMF, ¶5l).

         On November 6, 2015, Mygatt filed her "Schedule F" as part of her voluntary Chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy, and listed her debts owed to Medicredit as $300.23 and $308.20. (DSUMF, ¶¶3-5). Mygatt was discharged in bankruptcy on June 1, 2016. (DSUMF, ¶ 7).

         DISCUSSION

         I. MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

         A. Motion for Summary Judgment Standard

         The Court may grant a motion for summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Citrate, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir. 2011). The substantive law determines which facts are critical and which are irrelevant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., Ml U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome will properly preclude summary judgment. Id. Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.

         A moving party always bears the burden of informing the Court of the basis of its motion. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Once the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact, not the "mere existence of some alleged factual dispute." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. The nonmoving party may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleading. Id.

         In passing on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 331. The Court's function is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249. '"Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge.'" Torgerson, 643 F.3d at 1042 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000)).

         B. Discussion

         1. Plaintiffs Motion for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.