Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Johnson v. Nowcom Corp.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 9, 2019

ALEX WILLIAMS JOHNSON Plaintiff
v.
NOWCOM CORPORATION, NEW MARKET AUTO, Defendants

          MEMORANDUM

          James K. Bredar Chief Judge.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Alex Williams Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed this suit against two entities, Nowcom Corporation ("Nowcom") and New Market Auto.[1] (Compl., ECF No. 1.) He was granted leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 29), and that was docketed on January 29, 2019 (ECF No. 30). The amended complaint is the operative one in the case. Since then, Johnson has filed several more motions, as has Nowcom.[2] The filings addressed in this memorandum opinion begin with ECF No. 31 and go through ECF No, 59. No. hearing is necessary to resolve the motions. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2018).

         The following motions are at issue:

• Johnson's Motion to Amend Summary Judgment and Affidavit in Support (ECF No. 31)
• Nowcom's Renewed Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 33)
• Nowcom's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Amended Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Defer Action Until an Appropriate Stage in the Proceedings (ECF No. 34)
• Johnson's Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF No. 37)
• Johnson's Notice of Motion to Be Heard on Adjudicative Facts & Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Adjudacative [sic] Facts (ECF No. 38)
• Nowcom's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion to Be Heard and to Take Judicial Notice or, in the Alternative, to Defer Action Until an Appropriate Stage in the Proceedings (ECF No. 40)
• Johnson's Motion to Strike & Rebuttal to Nowcom's Opposition to Johnson's Second Motion to Amend His Complaint & Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion to Be Heard and to Take Judicial Notice (ECF No. 41)
• Johnson's Motion to Compel for Disclosure Statement (ECF No. 46)
• Johnson's Motion for Speedy Trial by Jury Demanded (ECF No. 47)
• Johnson's Motion to Compel & Rebuttal to ECF No. 45 (ECF No. 54)
• Johnson's Motion to Compel Trial by Jury, Rulings on Motions, Motions to Be Heard & Judicial Notices (ECF No. 57)
• Johnson's Motion to Compel for Scheduling Conference (ECF No. 5 8)

         The motions will be addressed in turn, but not necessarily in strict numerical order.

         II. Allegations of the Complaint

         According to the amended complaint (ECF No. 30), Johnson's lawsuit has six causes of action:

1. Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 ef seq.
2. Violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301
3. Violation of Maryland Code, Criminal § 8-301
4. Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028
5. Violation of Md. Ann. § 8-601 & 602
6. Unjust enrichment

         Relevant allegations that Johnson makes to support his case are the following:

The violation's [sic] which gives [sic] rise to this action occurred in BALTIMORE COUNTY and MARYLAND, and Plaintiff resides in BALTIMORE COUNTY and MARYLAND.

(Am. Compl. ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff on or about DATE (07-24-2018) obtained his/her three consumer credit reports from the three (3) major credit reporting bureaus Equifax, Transunion and Experian. Plaintiff at this time noticed and found an inquiry by defendant NOWCOM/NEW MARKET AUTO to obtain Plaintiffs consumer credit report on September 23, 2016.

(Id. ¶-9.)

Plaintiff has never had any business dealings with the defendant, nor has Plaintiff applied for any credit or services, or employment as defined in 15 USC § 1681(b), neither has Plaintiff executed any contracts resulting in an account in favor of the defendant.

(Id. ¶17.)

Defendants "NOWCOM/NEW MARKET AUTO" are "credit furnishers" within the meaning of the 15 USSC [sic] § 1681a(c). Experian are [sic] "credit providers" within the meaning of 15 USC § 1681(a)(f).

(Id. ¶ 13.)

On 9-23-2016, defendant obtained Plaintiffs [sic] consumer credit report with no "permissible ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.