Summary
This is a United States District Court order granting in part Defendant Enium Capital Group’s motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Justin Buser. The court dismissed Buser’s claims alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, finding that his forgery allegations were not objectively verifiable and that Enium conducted a reasonable investigation. The court also granted summary judgment on Buser’s state law claims for specific performance and found them preempted by federal law. Finally, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Enium’s breach of contract counterclaim, dismissing it without prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the FCRA claim (Count I).
- Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the FCCPA §559.72(9) claim (Count IV).
- Whether summary judgment is appropriate on the FCCPA §559.72(6) claim (Count V) and whether it is preempted by the FCRA.
- Whether specific performance is available as a remedy (Count XI).
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law breach‑of‑contract counterclaim.
Holdings
- The court granted summary judgment in favor of Enium on Count I, finding the plaintiff could not establish an actionable FCRA claim because the alleged inaccuracy was not objectively and readily verifiable.
- The court granted summary judgment on Count IV, finding the plaintiff failed to show that Enium had actual knowledge that the debt was not legitimate.
- The court granted summary judgment on Count V, holding that the claim is expressly preempted by the FCRA.
- The court granted summary judgment on Count XI, holding that no enforceable agreement exists that would support specific performance.
- The court dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).” (*2)
“No person shall [c]laim, attempt, or threaten to enforce a debt when such person known that the debt is not legitimate, or assert the existence of some other legal right when such person knows that the right does not exist.” (*6)
Factual background
Plaintiff Justin Buser alleges he purchased a residential solar panel system but disputes having entered into a loan agreement, claiming his signature was forged. Defendant Enium Capital Group, LLC purchased the loan from Georgia’s Own Credit Union and reported the debt to credit reporting agencies. The dispute centers on whether the loan documents were valid and whether Enium conducted a reasonable investigation.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed complaint alleging violations of the FCRA and Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and sought specific performance. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and a counterclaim for breach of contract. The court considered the motion and issued an order granting summary judgment on the federal claims and dismissing the counterclaim.