Strand-by-Strand Unraveling of Judge Lee P. Rudofsky’s Web of Lies and Deceit – Chapter Nine

We are looking at an order dismissing Portfolio Recovery Associates as defendants in an Invasion of Privacy case written by Trump Appointed Judge Lee P. Rudofsky in the Eastern District of Arkansas, 4:21-CV-000189, Docket Entry 173.

Judge Rudofsky wrote on page 5: “On December 18, 2013, PRA, LLC learned that the December 3, 2013 letter was returned as undeliverable because of a zip-code error in the address.⁴⁰” Probably over half the opinion is by small font, single spaced footnotes. Footnote 40: “Ex. 1 (Dreano Decl.) to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-3) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) ¶ 28; Ex. E to Ex. 1 to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 78-8) (Under Seal at Doc. 121) at 5. Throughout Ms. Hammett’s Response to Defendant’s Statement of Facts, Ms. Hammett offers blanket denials without pointing to any record facts. See, e.g., Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Statement of Facts (Doc. 99) (Under Seal) ¶ 28. On summary judgment, Ms. Hammett cannot rely on such denials to raise a genuine dispute of material fact. Rather, she must point to record facts to support her denials. Where she fails to do so, the law directs the Court to treat her unsupported denials as an admission. [citations omitted] The Court will not flag every time Ms. Hammett has failed to address PRA, LLC’s assertions of facts. Nevertheless, this legal point applies to all of Ms. Hammett’s unsupported denials.”

So, the judge complained that Hammett did not give specifics, but refused to specify where Hammett supposedly did not give specifics. Rudofsky complained about generalities by offering a generality.

He referred to a document Hammett filed under seal, and divulged what was supposedly under seal. His rendition was inaccurate.

Hammett later filed a redacted version of the document, following the Court and PRA’s lead about what was acceptable to discuss in public. Here is that document, 198.

Judge Rudofsky accepted PRA’s written affidavit that it resent the initial letter and that letter was not returned. Here is my, Hammett’s, detailed explanation of why that was not acceptable testimony and why it was not true. At Doc. 198, page 28.

“Meryl Dreano does not work for CompuMail Information Services, Inc. (‘CompuMail’) The return address on the letters sent on behalf of PRA belongs to CompuMail. The PRANet record generated by PRA as Bates No. PRA HAMMETT 000212 shows the mail was processed by CompuMail. Therefore Ms. Dreano’ s declaration, [paragraph] 28 is impermissible hearsay. Regardless, the required disclosures must be sent in a communication. ‘communication (14c) 1. The interchange of messages or ideas by speech, writing, gestures, or conduct; the process of bringing an idea to another’s perception.’ COMMUNICATION, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) The letters PRA claims were mailed did not reach Plaintiff, as the address was not her residence and the letters were not forwarded. (Hammett Affidavit [paragraph] 36, Defense Exhibit E)”

Hammett pointed to the record facts, her own affidavit.

On page 29, Hammett continued to give a detailed explanation of why PRA’s version of mailing letters to Hammett was wrong, and more importantly at the summary judgment stage, why a reasonable juror might agree with Hammett instead of Portfolio Recovery.

“Plaintiff can neither admit nor deny that the letters sent on December 19, 2013 and February 5, 2014 were not returned as undeliverable, and must therefore DENY. Plaintiff ADMITS that Plaintiff did not request validation of her debt- or otherwise respond in any way, ever, because she did not receive the letters. (Hammett Affidavit [paragraph] 36)”

Perhaps I could have gone into a bit more detail. “At no time did I walk to the mailbox that was in a bank of mailboxes at the curve in the circular road where I stayed for two nights, open the mailbox and look inside, and see an envelope addressed to ‘Laura Lynn’ or ‘Laura Lyman’ or ‘Laura Hammett’.” That seemed a bit excessive to me.

We know that Lee P. Rudofsky does not have a cognitive deficit. At least he had no cognitive deficit when he was admitted to and graduated from Cornell and Harvard Law.

Therefore, it is likely that Judge Rudofsky’s acceptance of Ms. Dreano’s affidavit and dismissal of Hammett’s denials citing the record facts in her own affidavit as “blanket” was motivated by his predetermination that no FDCPA nor tort case against a purchaser of credit data files will ever go to trial when he presides.