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.

Hunt v. Academy Mortgage Corp.

United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division

September 27, 2018

KEELY HUNT, Plaintiff,
v.
ACADEMY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          PAUL M. WARNER CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

          All parties in this case have consented to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner conducting all proceedings, including entry of final judgment, with appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[1] See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); Fed.R.Civ.P. 73. Before the court are (1) Defendant Academy Mortgage Corporation's (“Academy”) motion to dismiss, [2] (2) Plaintiff Keely Hunt's (“Hunt”) motion to substitute party, [3] and (2) Academy's motion for summary judgment.[4] The court has carefully reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties on the above-referenced motions. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will decide the motions on the basis of the written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).

         RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         The following background is taken from Hunt's complaint and from other sources that are properly considered in the context of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).[5]

         1. In February 2016, several months after her employment with Academy ended, Hunt filed a Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging claims for disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).[6]

         2. On October 4, 2016, while the Charge was still pending, Hunt filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition for bankruptcy (“Chapter 13 Petition”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah (“Bankruptcy Court”).[7]

         3. Along with the Chapter 13 Petition, Hunt filed a Statement of Financial Affairs for Individuals Filing for Bankruptcy, in which she indicated that “[w]ithin 1 year before [she] filed for bankruptcy, ” she had not been “a party in any lawsuit, court action, or administrative proceeding.”[8]

         4. Hunt attested that she “read the answers on [her] Statement of Financial Affairs and any attachments, and [she] declare[d] under penalty of perjury that the answers are true and correct.”[9]

         5. Additionally, Hunt filed certain schedules that included affirmative representations to the Bankruptcy Court regarding her assets and liabilities.[10]

         6. In Schedule A/B, Hunt was asked whether she had any “[c]laims against third parties, whether or not you have filed a lawsuit or made a demand for payment[.] Examples: Accidents, employment disputes, insurance claims, or rights to sue, ” and she responded, “No.”[11]

         7. Hunt was also asked whether she had any “[o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including counterclaims of the debtor and rights to sett off claims, ” and she responded, “No.”[12]

         8. Hunt filed a Declaration About an Individual Debtor's Schedules, in which she acknowledged that “[i]f two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information, ” and declaring “[u]nder penalty of perjury . . . that I have read the summary and schedules filed with the declaration and that they are true and correct.”[13]

         9. On March 30, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the Chapter 13 Petition, “having determined that all requirements for confirmation ha[d] not been met.”[14]

         10. On April 11, 2017, Hunt and her husband filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (“Chapter 7 Petition”).[15]

         11. After filing the Chapter 7 Petition, Hunt also filed various schedules summarizing her assets and liabilities.[16]

         12. Hunt was asked whether she had any “[c]laims against third parties, whether or not you have filed a lawsuit or made a demand for payment[.] Examples: Accidents, employment disputes, insurance claims, or rights to sue, ” and she responded, “No.”[17]

         13. Hunt was also asked whether she had any “[o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including counterclaims of the debtor and rights to sett off claims, ” and she responded, “No.”[18]

         14. In addition to the schedules, Hunt filed a Statement of Financial Affairs for Individuals Filing Bankruptcy, in which she indicated that “[w]ithin 1 year before [she] filed for bankruptcy, ” she had not been “a party in any lawsuit, court action, or administrative proceeding.”[19]

         15. Hunt attested that she “read the answers on [her] Statement of Financial Affairs and any attachments, and [she] declare[d] under penalty of perjury that the answers are true and correct.”[20]

         16. Finally, Hunt filed a Declaration About an Individual Debtor's Schedules, acknowledging that “[i]f two married people are filing together, both are equally responsible for supplying correct information, ” and declaring “under penalty of perjury . . . that I have read the summary and schedules filed with the declaration and that they are true and correct.”[21]

         17. On August 17, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted Hunt a discharge in bankruptcy.[22]

         18. As part of the discharge, the Bankruptcy Court discharged $267, 381.00 in debt that Hunt owed to her creditors.[23]

         19. The Bankruptcy Court also ordered that the trustee be discharged and the case be closed.[24]

         20. In June 2017, during the pendency of her bankruptcy proceedings, Hunt requested a Notice of Right to Sue, so that she could pursue her discrimination and retaliation claims against Academy in this court.[25]

         21. The EEOC “terminat[ed] its processing of” the Charge and issued Hunt a Notice of Right to Sue on July 18, 2017.[26]

         22. On September 14, 2017, approximately one month after the Bankruptcy Court discharged her debts, Hunt filed the instant action against Academy.[27]

         23. In her complaint, Hunt asserts claims against Academy for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the ADA, along with a claim for retaliation.[28]

         ANALYSIS

         As previously noted, the following motions are before the court: (1) Academy's motion to dismiss, (2) Hunt's motion to substitute party, and (3) Academy's motion for summary judgment. The court will address the motions in that order.

         I.

         Academy's Motion to Dismiss

          In this motion, Academy argues that this action should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) because Hunt is not the real party in interest.[29] Based upon the analysis below, the court agrees with that argument ...


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.