United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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.
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).
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).
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).
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Motion for Summary Judgment Standard
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.
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.
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)).
Plaintiffs Motion for ...