United States District Court, S.D. Florida
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
L. ROSENBERG, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment [DE 15]. The motion has been fully briefed.
For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
Shella Fleurisma, filed this case under the federal
Electronic Fund Transfer Act (“EFTA”), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1693. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant used improper
finance techniques in connection with the refinancing of her
automobile loan. After filing suit, Plaintiff sent requests
for admission to Defendant. See DE 15-5 at 1 n.1.
Defendant did not respond. Plaintiff then filed her Motion for
Summary Judgment premised on Defendant's failure to
respond to her requests for admission. Defendant did not
respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. As a
result of Defendant's failure to respond, the Court
issued an order to show cause. DE 16. Nineteen minutes before
the deadline imposed by the Court's order to show cause,
Defendant responded to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment. In that response, Defendant did not cite to any
claim under the EFTA is premised upon 15 U.S.C. §
1693k(1). That statute reads as follows:
No person may-
(1) condition the extension of credit to a
consumer on such consumer's repayment by means of
preauthorized electronic fund transfers Plaintiff must
therefore show: (1) Plaintiff is a consumer, (2) who was
extended credit by Defendant, and (3) Defendant's
extension of credit was premised on Plaintiff's consent
to a preauthorized electronic fund transfer.
Defendant did not respond to Plaintiff's requests for
admission, each of Plaintiff's requests for admission are
deemed admitted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
result, Plaintiff has cited evidence in support of her Motion
for Summary Judgment that establishes the following:
1. Plaintiff is a consumer for the purposes of § 1693k.
DE 15-1 at 1.
2. Defendant extended credit to Plaintiff. Id. at
3. Defendant conditioned its extension of credit on
Plaintiff's enrollment in an automatic payment plan-a
preauthorized electronic fund transfer. Id.
4. Defendant withdrew funds from Plaintiff's bank account
on multiple occasions. Id. at 5.
5. Defendant did not obtain any written authorization from
Plaintiff before debiting funds from Plaintiff's bank
citations to evidence are properly supported with citations
to the record, and Plaintiff's evidence establishes a