United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. Bredar Chief Judge.
Alex Williams Johnson, proceeding pro se, filed this
suit against two entities, Nowcom Corporation
("Nowcom") and New Market Auto. (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. 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).
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.
• 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
• Johnson's Motion to Compel for Scheduling
Conference (ECF No. 5 8)
motions will be addressed in turn, but not necessarily in
strict numerical order.
Allegations of the Complaint
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
allegations that Johnson makes to support his case are the
The violation's [sic] which gives [sic]
rise to this action occurred in BALTIMORE COUNTY and
MARYLAND, and Plaintiff resides in BALTIMORE COUNTY and
(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.
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.
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