United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MICHAELA O. KARLE, Plaintiff,
CAPITAL ONE BANK, DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, FIRST USA UNITED SECURITY BANK, CHASE, and PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE CO. Defendants.
AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (DKT. NO.
150) AND MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANT
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY (DKT. NO. 125),
DEFENDANT CAPITAL ONE BANK (DKT. NO. 130), AND PLAINTIFF
MICHAELA O. KARLE (DKT. NO. 134)
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ELECTRONIC ORDER
entered. After de novo review, the Court ADOPTS the
unobjected-to Report and Recommendation (#151) allowing
the defendants' motions for summary judgment (#s
125 & 130) and denying the plaintiff's motion
(#134). re Report and Recommendations re 151
Report and Recommendations. (Simeone, Maria) (Entered:
case arises innocently enough from invitations to apply for
credit and insurance coverage. Defendants Capital One Bank
(USA) N.A. (“Capital One”) and Progressive Direct
Insurance (“Progressive”) sent plaintiff Michaela
Karle (Karle or “the plaintiff”) credit card and
insurance offers, respectively, after checking her credit and
determining she might be a good client. Karle, representing
herself, contends that the defendants violated federal and
state law because they had no right to check her credit where
she did not apply for credit or insurance from either
defendant. The defendants counter that they pulled the
plaintiff's credit in order to extend firm offers of
credit and insurance, a statutorily permitted purpose, and
they have moved for summary judgment on all counts. (Dkt.
Nos. 125, 130). The plaintiff in response filed a cross
motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 134). After doing so,
though, the plaintiff stopped participating in the case, and
she has failed to respond to court issuances or to appear as
directed for scheduled hearings. This failure to prosecute
warrants dismissal on its own, but I also conclude on the
merits that the defendants did not violate federal or state
law in sending business solicitations to the plaintiff.
Accordingly, I recommend that the defendants' summary
judgment motions be allowed, that the plaintiffs motion for
summary judgment be denied, and that the complaint be
dismissed both for failure to prosecute and on the merits.
The Second Amended Complaint
original complaint named five defendants but Karle dismissed
her claims against all but two defendants, Capital One and
Progressive. The second amended complaint is the operative
complaint and it alleges five claims against the defendants.
(Dkt. No. 72). Progressive obtained dismissal of Counts I,
III, IV and V, leaving only Count II pending against it.
(Dkt. No. 91). Capital One did not file a motion to dismiss;
as a result, all five counts of the second amended complaint
remain pending against it. (Dkt. No. 75).
plaintiff contends that the defendants improperly caused
credit inquiries to be conducted on her on more than one
occasion, and that these credit checks constitute violations
of two federal statutes and the state consumer protection
. Count I alleges a violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p by
making false representations to obtain information about a
. Count II alleges a willful violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681.
. Count III alleges a violation of M.G.L. c. 93A on the
ground that a violation of the FDCPA and FCRA constitutes an
“automatic violation” of the state consumer
. Count IV alleges a negligent violation of the FCRA.
. Count V alleges a knowing and willful violation of the