Garcia v. Plusfour, Inc et al

MOTION for Summary Judgment

D. Neb.March 3, 2017

1 Raleigh C. Thompson, NV Bar No.11296 2 Ryan M. Lower, NV Bar No. 9108 MORRIS LAW GROUP 3 900 Bank of America Plaza 300 South Fourth Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 5 Telephone: (702) 474-9400 Email: rct@morrislawgroup.com 6 Email: rml@morrislawgroup.com Attorneys for Defendant 8 PlusFour, Inc.> 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 11 o ANGELINA A. GARCIA, Case No. 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK12 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. DEFENDANT PLUSFOUR, INC.’s • MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN 15 PLUSFOUR, INC; EQUIFAX THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 (-y Defendants. 19 Defendant PlusFour, Inc. (“PlusFour”) moves for an order 20 dismissing the Complaint (ECF No. 3) (the “Complaint”) filed by plaintiff 21 Angelina Garcia (“Plaintiff” or “Garcia”) because the Complaint fails to state 22 a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 23 Alternatively, to the extent the Court must consider evidence outside of the 24 pleadings in ruling on this motion, PlusFour requests an order granting 25 summary judgment in favor of PlusFour and against Plaintiff under Rule 56. 26 This motion is based on the following points and authorities, and, to the 27 extent necessary to consider and grant summary judgment, the Declaration 28 of Richard Bennett (“Bennett Deci.”) attached hereto as Exhibit A. Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 10 1 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 It is beyond dispute that neither the Fair Debt Collection 4 Practices Act (FDCPA) nor the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) support a 5 claim against a debt collector for transmitting accurate information to a credit 6 reporting agency. Yet that is what Plaintiff seeks in this lawsuit, which is 7 based on allegations of incorrect reporting that are demonstrably false. 8 Plaintiff alleges that PlusFour incorrectly reported a debt as 9 outstanding after the debt had been included, and discharged, in Plaintiffs 10 Bankruptcy case. But the filings in Plaintiff’s bankruptcy case show what she ii. presumably already knew before filing this lawsuit: Plaintiff’s debt to PlusFour, 12 which was incurred for services she received years after she filed her Petition ri ‘j 13 for Bankruptcy, was not included (or discharged) in her bankruptcy case. 14 Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a cD . I 15 claim under Rule 12(b)(6). 16 Additionally, and in direct contradiction to the allegations that 17 the debt was discharged by operation of the Bankruptcy Code, the Complaint 18 insinuates that PlusFour falsely reported the debt as having a balance of $1 19 despite the debt having been “paid in full.” But Plaintiff does not allege facts 20 from which the Court can infer that the debt was paid in full. She does not 21 allege the amount of the debt, the amount of the payment, or the date of the 22 payment. And the conclusory statement that PlusFour improperly 23 attempted to collect a debt which had been “paid in full” does not follow 24 from the surrounding allegations that the debt was discharged in bankruptcy. 25 26 1 A complaint incorrectly alleging that a debt owed to PlusFour was 27 included in bankruptcy is, unfortunately, becoming routine, as this is the sixth such complaint filed against PlusFour in the past six months. PlusFour 28 reserves its right to seek its attorney fees and costs for defending these unvetted lawsuits under the FDCPA, FCRA, and other applicable authority. 2 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 10 1 Accordingly, to the extent the Complaint is based on the theory that Plaintiff 2 paid off the debt in full (rather than having the debt discharged through her 3 bankruptcy), the Court should likewise dismiss the claims. 4 Alternatively, if the Complaint is construed to satisfy Rule 8’s 5 pleading standard, the Court should enter summary judgment in favor of 6 PlusFour because the allegation that Plaintiffpaid her debt in full is false. Rather, 7 these are the facts: (1) Plaintiff owed a debt to PlusFour in the amount of 8 $35.61; (2) Plaintiff paid $34.00 toward that debt; (3) PlusFour correctly 9 credited the payment and reported the new balance as $1.61. Regardless of 10 whether Plaintiff’s failure to pay the entire debt was intentional or an ii unfortunate oversight on her part, the balance reported by PlusFour to 12 Experian was correct and does not support a claim for misreporting under 13 the statutory schemes of either the FCRA or FDCPA. That fact will not vary 14 with any amount of discovery. Thus, the Court should grant summary 15 judgment against Plaintiff’s infirm claims. 16 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT r 17 The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff defaulted on a debt to 18 Southwest Medical, which was then assigned to PlusFour for collection. 19 Compl. (ECF No. 3) ¶ 15. It further alleges that Plaintiff filed Chapter 13 20 Bankruptcy on January 18, 2010 under Case Number 10-10697-btb. Id. at ¶ 21 15. That the “debt” owedby Plaintiff-which is not described by amount, 22 account number, or other identifying characteristic-was “scheduled in the 23 Bankruptcy and each respective creditor-Defendant, or its predecessor in 24 interest, received notice of the Bankruptcy.” Id. at ¶ 16. And that the debt 25 “was discharged through the Bankruptcy on [June 16, 2015].” Id. at ¶ 22. 26 Based on these allegations, the Complaint repeatedly alleges that “the 27 defendants” improperly attempted to collect on a “discharged” debt. See id. 28 at ¶91 22, 23, 24, 56, 57,59. 3 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 10 1 Plaintiff did not, however, include any debt to PlusFour (or 2 Southwest Medical) in her bankruptcy case, as proven by the trustee’s final 3 report attached hereto as Exhibit B. See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 4 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001) (the Court is not required to accept as true 5 allegations contradicted by judicially noticed facts) (citation omitted) •2 6 Inconsistent with the numerous paragraphs alleging that 7 Plaintiff’s debt was discharged in Bankruptcy, the Complaint repeatedly 8 concludes that PlusFour incorrectly reported a balance of $1 despite the fact 9 the debt was “paid in full.” Id. at ¶9[ 22,37, 39, 43. Nowhere, however, does 10 the Complaint allege facts concerning when or how the debt was paid in ii full-such as the amount of the debt, the amount of the payment, or the date FCN 12 of the payment, which would support an inference that the debt was in fact 13 paid in full. See id., generally. Incorporating all prior allegations, the 14 Complaint then asserts boilerplate causes of action for misreporting under 15 the FCRA and the FDCPA. Id. at ¶(J[ 60-69. 16 III. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT <0 - PlusFour provides collection services for various clients 18 including Southwest Medical Associates (SMA). Ex. A, Bennett Decl. ¶3. uj 19 On June 21, 2013, SMA assigned to PlusFour an account for Angelina U- 20 Garcia. Id. The account was for a debt of $34, which Ms. Garcia incurred 23 2PlusFour requests that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibit B under Federal Rule of Evidence 201 because it was printed from the Court’s 24 Bankruptcy PACER site, so the source of the information is reliable and “not 25 subject to reasonable dispute” because the facts are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably 26 be questioned.” FRE 201(b)(2); see also U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“we ‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial 28 system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”) (internal citations omitted). 4 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 10 1 with SMA for services she received on February 14, 2013. Id. PlusFour has 2 not received notice related to a bankruptcy case for Ms. Garcia. Id. at ¶ 4. 3 On May 22, 2014, when the balance of the debt was $35.61 4 including interest, Ms. Garcia made a payment of $34 to SMA. Id. at ¶ 5. 5 SMA immediately informed PlusFour of this payment, and PlusFour 6 immediately updated its account to reflect the payment. Id. Accordingly, 7 following the payment, the balance on Ms. Garcia’s account was reduced to 8 $1.61; not to $0 as alleged. Id. Thus, on October 5, 2015, at the time Ms. 9 Garcia alleges to have obtained an Experian credit report reflecting a 10 balance on her account with PlusFour, a balance did in fact exist-a fact 11 which PlusFour correctly reported. Id. at ¶ 6. Based on these facts, the 12 Court should grant this motion and enter summary judgment against 13 Plaintiff’s claims, which cannot succeed as a matter of law. 14 IV. ARGUMENT 15 A. The Court Should Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims Because Her 16 Debt to PlusFour Was Not Discharged in Bankruptcy. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. A Rule 12)(6) dismissal is proper where there is 19 either a “lack of a cognizable legal theory,” or “the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 20 21 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). The Court must accept all factual allegations pleaded in the complaint as true, and construe them and draw all reasonable 22 inferences from them in favor of the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 80 F.3d 336, 337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). The Court, however, need not accept as true unreasonable 25 inferences or conclusory legal allegations couched in the form of factual 26 allegations. Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Mere 27 conclusory statements in a complaint-such as “labels and conclusions’ or ‘a 28 formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action”-are insufficient to 5 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 10 1 state a claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 2 U.S. at 570). Further, the Court is not required to accept as true allegations 3 contradicted by judicially noticed facts. Sprewell, 266 F.3d at 988 (citing 4 Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1987)). As shown 5 below, Plaintiffs Complaint does not meet this standard. 6 The primary theory that can be extracted from the Complaint is 7 that PlusFour misreported a debt which had been discharged in Bankruptcy. 8 Plaintiff’s debt to PlusFour, however, was not included (or discharged) in 9 her bankruptcy case. Exhibit B, Trustee’s Final Report (listing scheduled 10 creditors). Because Plaintiff’s claims that PlusFour violated the FDCPA and ii FCRA by misreporting a discharged debt are based on a demonstrably false 12 allegation of fact, they must be dismissed with prejudice. 13 Even if Plaintiff had included the debt to PlusFour in her 14 bankruptcy case, her FDCPA claim based on improper collection of a 15 discharged debt would still require dismissal because it would be precluded 16 by the Bankruptcy Code. See Berkowitz v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, No.r 17 2:13-cv-00759-JAD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102494, at *8 (D. Nev. July 25, 2014) 18 (“the Walls Court broadly held that the FDCPA does not allow a private 19 cause of action for violation of the Bankruptcy Code.”) (citing Walls v. Wells 20 Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 505 (9th Cir. 2002). 21 B. To the Extent the Complaint Seeks to Allege that Ms. Garcia Paid Her Debt, it Does Not Satisfy Rule 8. 22 It is well established that to state a claim against a furnisher 23 under the FCRA, a plaintiff must allege that an inaccuracy existed in her 24 credit report. Carvalho v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 629 F.3d 876, 890 (9th Cir. 25 2010) (holding that although the FCRA “does not on its face require that an 26 actual inaccuracy exist for a plaintiff to state a claim, many courts, including 27 our own, have imposed such a requirement”); Kruse v. Experian Info. 28 Solutions, Inc., 471 Fed. Appx. 714, 715 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that 6 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 6 of 10 1 inaccuracies in credit report were required to maintain FCRA claim); see also 2 Giovanni v. Bank ofAmerica N.A., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178914, at *13 (N.D. 3 Cal. 2012) (“The Court first considers whether [defendanti reported 4 inaccurate information and, if necessary, then considers whether it is liable 5 for failing to correct that information.”). - 6 Indeed, the foundational requirement of an FCRA claim is the 7 existence of a factual inaccuracy. Carvaiho, 629 F.3d at 890; see also Biggs v. 8 Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 5:16-cv-01507-EJD, 2016 9 WL 5235043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2016) (dismissing with leave to amend 10 because plaintiff failed to allege a factual inaccuracy); Abeyta v. Bank ofAm., ii N.A., No. 2:15-cv-02320-RCJ-NJK, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43602, at *5_*7 (D. 12 Nev. Mar. 30, 2016) (dismissing First Amended Complaint with leave to 13 amend because plaintiff did not allege that the fact of the previous 14 delinquency was untrue; and dismissing the Second Amended Complaint 15 with prejudice because no allegation of actual falsity was made). 16 Similarly, a claim for misreporting a debt under the FDCPA r C 17 must be based on a statement that is false and material. See Donohue v. Quick 18 Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1034 (9th Cir. 2010) (a statement must be false and 19 material to be actionable under the FDCPA); see also Gustafson v. Experian 20 Info. Sols. Inc., No. 2:14-CV-01453-ODW EX, 2015 WL 3477071, at *8 (C.D. 21 Cal. June 2, 2015) (“because Gustafson cannot show there is a genuine 22 dispute with regard to the accuracy of the information SST reported or 23 Experian’s ability to report the tradelines, Gustafson’s FDCPA and RFDCPA 24 claims also fail as a matter of law.”). 25 Although the Complaint includes conclusory allegations that 26 PlusFour misreported the debt as outstanding because the debt had been 27 “paid in full,” it does not allege facts sufficient to draw that conclusion. It 28 does not allege, for example, how much was owed, how much was paid, or when or how the debt was paid. Moreover, the Court cannot draw the 7 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 7 of 10 1 inference that Plaintiff paid off the debt by reference to the other allegations 2 in the Complaint, which are based on the inapposite theory that the debt 3 was discharged in bankruptcy rather than paid by Plaintiff. Accordingly, the 4 Complaint does not allege facts sufficient to draw a reasonable inference 5 that PlusFour reported a factual inaccuracy, which would be required to - 6 state a claim under the FCRA or FDCPA. The Court should, therefore, enter 7 an order dismissing the Complaint with prejudice. 8 C. Alternatively, if the Complaint Sufficiently Alleges the Debt Was Paid in Full, the Court Should Enter Summary Judgment Because the Debt Was Not in Fact Paid in Full. 10 Summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings, the 11 discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that 12 there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is 13 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Summary 14 judgment is appropriately entered against a party who “fails to make a 15 showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 16 party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” 17 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). 18 In opposing summary judgment, a party “may not rely merely 19 on allegations or denials in its own pleading; rather, its response must ... set 20 out specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 21 The opposing party must “do more than simply show that there is some 22 metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. 23 Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Instead it “must produce specific 24 evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show” a 25 sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact finder could find in 26 its favor. Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991); 27 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). The opposing 28 party cannot create a factual dispute by reciting evidence that will not “affect 8 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 8 of 10 1 the outcome of the suit.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. Likewise, it cannot 2 “proceed in the hope that something can be developed at trial in the way of 3 evidence to support its claim.” T. W Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors 4 Ass ‘n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 5 Plaintiff paid $34 toward the $35.61 debt that she owed to 6 PlusFour, which left a balance of $1.61. See Ex. A, Bennett Decl. Thus, the 7 report from PlusFour to Equifax that Plaintiff owed a balance, as allegedly 8 viewed by Plaintiff in an October 5, 2015 credit report, was accurate. These 9 facts prevent Plaintiff from prevailing on her claims as a matter of law. 10 Accordingly, the Court should enter summary judgment in favor of 11 PlusFour and against Plaintiff’s claims. 12 V. CONCLUSION 13 For these reasons, the Court should grant this motion and 14 dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, as amendment of a complaint is based on demonstrably false allegations is futile. Alternatively, the Court 16 should consider the evidence attached to this Motion and enter summary 17 judgment against Plaintiff’s claims which cannot succeed as a matter of law. MORRIS LAW GROUP 20 By: /s/ Raleigh C. Thompson Raleigh C. Thompson, NV Bar No. 11296 21 Ryan M. Lower, NV Bar No. 9108 900 Bank of America Plaza 300 South Fourth Street 23 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 24 Attorneys for Defendant 25 PlusFour, Inc. 26 27 28 9 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 9 of 10 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b) and Section IV of Nevada 3 Electronic Filing Procedures, I certify that I am an employee of MORRIS 4 LAW GROUP, and that the following document was served via electronic 5 service: PLUSFOUR, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE 6 ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TTO: 8 David H. Krieger, NV Bar No. 9086 9 HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC 8985 5. Eastern Ave., Suite 350 10 Henderson, Nevada 89123 Email: davidkrieger@hainesandkrieger.com 12 Attorney for Plaintiff 13 Angelina A. Garcia 14 DATED this 3rd day of March, 2017. 15 16 By:_ Is! Patty Cannon 17 10 Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9 Filed 03/03/17 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT A Declaration of Richard Bennett EXHIBIT A Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9-1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 3 1 DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF 2 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3 1. I, Richard Bennett, declare as follows: 4 2. I am the President of PlusFour, Inc. (PlusFour”). I am 5 familiar with the business records of PlusFour. Based on those records 6 and my personal knowledge, I am competent to testify to the facts stated in 7 this declaration. I make this declaration in support of PlusFour’s Motion to 8 Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (the “Motion”) in 9 Garcia v. PlusFour, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK. 10 3. PlusFour provides collection services for various clients 11 including Southwest Medical Associates (SMA). On June 21, 2013, SMA 12 assigned to PlusFour an account for Angelina Garcia. The account is for a 13 debt of $34 which Ms. Garcia incurred with SMA for services on February 14 14, 2013. 15 4. I am familiar with the allegation by Ms. Garcia that she 16 included the debt to PlusFour in her Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Case Number 17 10-10697-btb. PlusFour did not receive any notice related to that 18 bankruptcy case, which was filed before Ms. Garcia incurred the debt with 19 SMA. I have also reviewed the docket for that case, and it does not appear 20 that Ms. Garcia listed the debt to SMA or PlusFour in the case. 21 5. On May 22, 2014, when the debt was $35.61 including 22 interest, Ms. Garcia made a payment of $34 to SMA. SMA immediately 23 informed PlusFour of this payment, and PlusFour immediately updated its 24 account to reflect the payment. Accordingly, following the payment, the 25 balance on Ms. Garcia’s account was $1.61. 26 6. I am familiar with the allegation that Ms. Garcia obtained 27 an Experian credit report on October 5, 2015, which reflected a balance on C) Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9-1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 3 1 her account with PlusFour. The report was accurate because a balance of 2 $1.61 remained on Ms. Garcia’s account at that time. 3 7. Since then, PlusFour closed Ms. Garcia’s account and 4 marked it “paid in full.” This is consistent with PlusFour’s business 5 practice of periodically reviewing its accounts for nominal balances that, 6 although still owing, it has decided to not collect, and marking them as 7 “paid in full.” This practice also benefits consumers such as Ms. Garcia 8 who may have inadvertently failed to pay off the full balance of an 9 account. 10 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and 11 correct. 12 Executed this 3rd day of March, 2017. 13 14 /s/ Richard Bennett 15 RICHARD BENNETT 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 C) -2- Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9-1 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT B Trustee’s Final Report EXHIBIT B Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 1 of 5 Case 10-10697-btb Doc 90 Entered 07/02/15 16:12:37 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA In re: Case No. 10-10697-BTB FLORENTINO GARCIA ANGELINA GARCIA Debtor(s) CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT Kathleen A. Leavitt, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account of the administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(l). The trustee declares as follows: 1) The case was filed on 01/18/2010. 2) The plan was confirmed on 06/03/20 10. 3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 on 08/09/20 14, 09/16/20 14. 4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the plan on NA. 5) The case was completed on 01/06/2015. 6) Number of months from filing to last payment: Q. 7) Number of months case was pending: 65. 8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: 9) Total value of assets exempted: $48,848.19. 10)Amount of unsecured claims discharged without payment: $151,960.95. 11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank. UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009) Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 2 of 5 Case 10-10697-btb Doc 90 Entered 07/02/15 16:12:37 Page 2 of 4 Receipts: Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor $55,655.00 Less amount refunded to debtor $0.00 NET RECEIPTS: $55,655.00 Expenses of Administration: Attorney’s Fees Paid Through the Plan $9,929.95 Court Costs $0.00 Trustee Expenses & Compensation $3,508.59 Other $0.00 TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $13,438.54 Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $1,500.00 Scheduled Creditors: Creditor Claim Claim Claim Principal lnt. Name Class Scheduled Asserted Allowed Paid Paid American Honda Finance Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 BANK OF AMERICA Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 CHASE Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 CHASE Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 CHASE ,ACCTNO XXXXXXXXX8572 Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 CHASE BANK Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Chase-pierl Unsecured - NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 CHASE-PIER1 Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 CITIBANK SD, NA Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 CITY OF LAS VEGAS EMS Unsecured 752.87 NA NA 0.00 0.00 DIME SAVINGS BANK Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 DISCOVER BANK Unsecured 9,018.00 0.00 9,018.84 2,574.38 0.00 DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, L1 Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 EAST BAY FUNDING LLC Unsecured 7,082.00 0.00 7,082.02 2,021.52 0.00 First National Bank Credit Card Center Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 FIRST NATIONAL BANK CREDIT CAI Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 GEMB/JC PENNY Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 GEMB/JCP Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 HSBC BANK Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 HSBC BEST BUY Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 HSBCIBSTBY Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 KOHLS/CHASE Unsecured 81.00 NA NA 0.00 0.00 LVNVFUNDINGLLC Unsecured 13,872.00 0.00 14,069.60 4,016.10 0.00 NEXTCARD INC Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 PIER 1/NB Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Pier 1/Nb Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 PRA RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT I Unsecured 656.00 0.00 656.07 190.57 0.00 QUEST DIAGNOSITCS Unsecured 365.05 NA NA 0.00 0.00 Sanis Club Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 SEARS/CBSD Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Sears/cbsd Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009) Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 3 of 5 Case 10-10697-btb Doc 90 Entered 07/02/15 16:12:37 Page 3 of 4 Scheduled Creditors: Creditor Claim Claim Claim Principal mt. Name Class Scheduled Asserted Allowed Paid Paid SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC Secured 0.00 0.00 399,095.95 0.00 0.00 SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC Secured 379,976.00 0.00 19,119.93 19,119.93 0.00 SUNTRUST MORTGAGE INC Secured 0.00 0.00 21.50 21.50 0.00 Suntmst Mortgage/cc 5 Secured NA 0.00 114.45 114.45 0.00 Suntrust Mortgage/cc 5 Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Suntrust Mortgage/cc 5 Unsecured 94,890.00 NA NA 0.00 0.00 TARGET Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Target Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CO Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Toyota Motor Credit Co Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY Unsecured 0.00 0.00 68.61 15.53 0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY Priority 800.00 0.00 641.07 641.07 0.00 US BANK HOME MORTGAGE Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Us Bank Home Mortgage Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 WELLS FARGO BANK NA Unsecured 29,358.00 0.00 31,142.40 8,889.58 0.00 WELLS FARGO BANK NA Unsecured 13,559.00 0.00 14,474.11 4,131.56 0.00 WELLSFARGOBANKNA Unsecured NA 0.00 149.98 43.56 0.00 WELLS FARGO BANK NA Unsecured 1,529.00 0.00 1,529.91 436.71 0.00 Wells Fargo Card Ser Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 WELLS FARGO CARD SER Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Wells Fargo Card 5cr Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 WELLS FARGO CARD SER Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 WFFINANCIAL Unsecured NA NA NA 0.00 0.00 Summary of Disbursements to Creditors: Claim Principal Interest Allowed Paid Paid Secured Payments: Mortgage Ongoing $399,095.95 $0.00 $0.00 Mortgage Arrearage $19,255.88 $19,255.88 $0.00 Debt Secured by Vehicle $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All Other Secured $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL SECURED: $418,351.83 $19,255.88 $0.00 Priority Unsecured Payments: Domestic Support Arrearage $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Domestic Support Ongoing $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 All OtherPriority $641.07 $641.07 $0.00 TOTAL PRIORITY: $641.07 $641.07 $0.00 GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS: $78,191.54 $22,319.51 $0.00 UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009) Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 4 of 5 Case 10-10697-btb Doc 90 Entered 07/02/15 16:12:37 Page 4 of 4 Disbursements: Expenses of Administration $13,438.54 Disbursements to Creditors $42,216.46 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS: $55,655.00 12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, the estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all administrative matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee requests a final decree be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may be just and proper. Dated: 07/02/2015 By: Is! Kathleen A. Leavitt Trustee STATEMENT: This Unified Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork Reduction Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies. UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009) Case 2:17-cv-00199-JAD-NJK Document 9-2 Filed 03/03/17 Page 5 of 5