govinfo:USCOURTS-kywd-3_24-cv-00197-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY 
AT LOUISVILLE 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-00197-CRS-RSE 
 
SHALONDA CURRY PLAINTIFF 
 
v. 
 
TD BANK USA, N.A., et al DEFENDANTS1 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 
 
 This matter is before the Court on three motions: (1) Defendant TD Bank’s motion to 
enforce an alleged settlement agreement, (2) plaintiff Shalonda Curry’s motion for summary 
judgment and (3) plaintiff Shalonda Curry’s motion for reconsideration of a ruling made by 
Magistrate Judge Regina E dwards. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny all three 
motions and order the parties to participate in a scheduling conference with the magistrate judge.  
BACKGROUND 
 Curry alleges that TD Bank  violated her rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 
U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the “FCRA”).  More specifically, she contends that for four months, TD 
Bank falsely report ed a $2,512.00 debt and falsely stated that this debt  had been charged off. 
Complaint, DN 1 -2, at ¶ 10 . In truth, according to Curry, she had entered an Agreed Judgment 
under which TD Bank agreed to accept $1,320.00 in full satisfaction of the debt and to a payment 
plan. Id. at ¶ 13. Thus, given this agreement and because she paid as agreed, Curry alleges that TD 
Bank should have changed its reporting for the months of November 2023, December 2023, 
January 2024 and February 2024. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 22, and 28. Additionally, she alleges that TD Bank 
 
1TD Bank  USA, N.A.  (“TD Bank”)  is one of four defendants who were named in this action. The other three 
defendants have been dismissed. For ease of reference, the Court has listed T.D. Bank in the caption of this case 
although a different defendant was originally the first-named defendant.  
Case 3:24-cv-00197-CRS-RSE     Document 56     Filed 02/24/26     Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
2 
 
should have stated that the debt was paid in the payment history for the same four months, should 
have retracted its statement that the debt was past due, and should have retracted its statement that 
the debt was charged-off. Id. at ¶ 28.   
 These allegations and the FCRA claim were filed on Curry’s behalf by attorney James H. 
Lawson in February 2024 . Id. at PageID# 22. 2 On October 14, 2024, in an email to TD Bank’s 
attorney, Lawson proposed a non-monetary settlement, consisting of a single condition. DN 38 at 
PageID# 162. 3 On November 5, 2024, TD Bank , by counsel,  accepted Lawson’s proposal and 
added two more standard terms. Id. On December 4, 2024, Lawson stated that Curry would settle 
on the condition that he had originally offered. Id. at 161. Counsel for TD Bank sent a draft 
settlement and release agreement on December 11, 2024. Id. at PageID# 160. Curry refused to sign 
the agreement: “I explicitly informed Mr. Lawson that I did not agree with the terms being 
discussed and refused to sign the proposed settlement agreement for that reason.” Response by 
Curry, DN 31 at PageID# 131 ; see also DN 41-7, Curry Affidavit at ¶ 2 ( “I did not agree to any 
settlement with TD Bank . . . .”).  
 Months passed without any action in this case. On April 24, 2025,  Attorney Lawson moved 
to withdraw, stating that he and Curry had “a conflict on how to proceed with the case that cannot 
be reconciled.” DN 25, Motion for Leave to Withdraw, at PageID# 89. The Motion was granted. 
Order, DN 26. Since then, aside from a stipulation dismissing a different defendant, Curry has 
proceeded in this action pro se.  
 
2 Lawson filed in the Jefferson Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Kentucky. Id. Defendants removed the action to 
this Court on March 25, 2024. DN 1, Notice of Removal.  
3 This document has been filed under seal.  
Case 3:24-cv-00197-CRS-RSE     Document 56     Filed 02/24/26     Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
3 
 
 In the early days of June 2025 , TD Bank moved to enforce the “settlement agreement.” 
DNs 29 & 30. 4 In connection with its motion, TD Bank moved to seal one of its  exhibits: a 
document consisting of counsels’ email exchanges regarding settlement. Before the Court ruled 
on that requested relief, Curry filed her response to the bank’s motion to enforce the settlement 
agreement (DN 40). She attached emails with settlement communications and the draft release 
agreement. She also filed a summary judgmen t motion and attached the same documents to that 
motion. DNs 41-1 (emails) and 41-2 (release agreement). TD Bank sought to seal all such filings, 
including its own submission of the settlement-communication emails. Magistrate Judge Edwards 
granted that relief. DN 48, 08/13/12025 Order. Believing that sealing a document prevents her 
from relying upon it, Curry has objected to that Order and asks for a reconsideration of it. DN 50, 
Motion for Reconsideration  (“. . . sealing prevents Plaintiff from fully defending against TD 
Bank’s attempts to enforce nonbinding drafts.”). TD Bank has opposed that motion and asks that 
the documents remained sealed, asserting that sealing a document does not prevent Curry’s use or 
reliance on it . DN 54, Response. Nonetheless, while Curry recognizes that the documents have 
been presented to the Court under seal, she remains concerned that the Court will ignore at least 
one of those documents because she omitted it from one of her  filings: “The November 5 email 
must be considered in order to resolve the settlement issue fairly.” Reply, DN 55, at PageID# 362. 
 At the same time, Curry has moved for a summary judgment on the settlement dispute. In 
addition, she seeks a judgment on her FCRA claim and has added new allegations with respect to 
TD Bank’s having filed a judgment lien on her home and she now states that her constitutional 
rights have been violated. Curry also seeks an accounting. She has attached several exhibits to her 
motion but does not develop any argument with respect to those exhibits. Those exhibits include 
 
4 It appears that the same motion was noted twice in the docket so as to correct its title on the docket. DN 29 and DN 
30 are the same document.   
Case 3:24-cv-00197-CRS-RSE     Document 56     Filed 02/24/26     Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
4 
 
witness statements as to Curry’s emotional distress. Curry asks for a judgment in the amount of $5 
million. TD Bank has opposed Curry’s motion, primarily on the ground that no discovery has taken 
place, noting that Curry never served her initial disclosures and the bank’s pending motion as to 
the settlement agreement would potentially dispose of Curry’s case against the bank. Curry has 
not disputed the fact that no discovery has taken place.  
ANALYSIS 
 
 None of the motions or the parties’ arguments require a lengthy analysis. First, TD Bank’s 
Motion to Enforce Settlement cannot be granted  at this time.  The alleged settlement agreement 
was entered into in Kentucky. Under Kentucky law, “express client authority must be had to enter 
a settlement agreement . . . . Where no express authority to settle exists, a settlement cannot bind 
the client.” Jago v. Special Needs Home Health Care, 190 S.W.3d 352, 353 (Ky. App. 2006) (citing 
Clark v. Burden , 917 S.W.2d 574  (Ky. 1996) and Ford v. Beasley , 148 S.W.3d 808 (Ky. App. 
2004)). Even so, a court  can still enforce a settlement agreement if TD Bank was “substantially 
and adversely affected by [its] reliance upon the purported settlement.” Clark, 917 S.W.2d at 577.  
 Presently, the record in this case does not demonstrate that Curry gave her former attorney, 
Lawson, express authority to settle. To the contrary, Curry has declared that she never gave 
Lawson such authority and the bank has not proffered anything that contradicts this assertion. The 
Court finds that Lawson’s email simply stating that the case can be settled is not sufficiently 
conclusive in light of Curry’s  conflicting declaration. Nor does the record include any showing 
that TD Bank was substantially and adversely affected by its reliance on the purported settlement. 
As a result, the Court will deny TD Bank’s Motion s to enforcement settlement (DNs 29 & 30) 
without prejudice to refiling.  
Case 3:24-cv-00197-CRS-RSE     Document 56     Filed 02/24/26     Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
5 
 
 Second, Curry’s Motion for Reconsideration is wholly without merit. Sealing documents 
does not bar a party’s access or reliance on that document to support or defend a case. Curry is 
simply mistaken here. The Court, as does Curry, has full access to the documents and both are able 
to read and evaluate them. Indeed, Curry has demonstrated as much by submitting them in support 
of her arguments. Nor is there any basis on which to strike the bank’s filings with respect to this 
issue. For these reasons, Curry’s Motion to Reconsider will be denied.    
 Finally, the Court will deny Curry’s summary judgment motion (DN 41). The Court finds 
that the motion is premature  and not properly supported . First, no discovery has taken place. 
McKinely v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.2d 418, 443 (6th Cir. 2005) (as matter of discretion, summary 
judgment motions may be held premature where “no discovery had occurred”); Vance By and 
Through Hammons v. United States,  90 F.3d 1145, 1149 (6th Cir.  1996) (reversing summary 
judgment because “no discovery was conducted before the motion for summary judgment was 
filed and decided”). Second, it appears to the Court that TD Bank held a good faith  belief that it 
had settled the plaintiff’s claims. Third, Curry’s summary judgment motion is not properly 
supported as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  56. The rule requires that “[a] party 
asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by: (A) citing to 
particular parts of materials in the record  [.]” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c)(1). A general reference to 
attached documents does not satisfy the Rule. Thus, Curry’s motion must be denied. Celotex Corp. 
v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 3 31 (1986) (if the mov ant has not fully discharged its burden of 
production, motion for summary judgment must be denied).   
CONCLUSION 
 
 For the reasons set forth above, defendant TD Bank  USA NA ’s Motions to enforce 
settlement (DN 29 & DN 30) are DENIED without prejudice to refiling. Plaintiff Shalonda Curry’s 
Case 3:24-cv-00197-CRS-RSE     Document 56     Filed 02/24/26     Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>
6 
 
Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 41)  is DENIED without prejudice  to refiling.  Plaintiff 
Shalonda Curry’s Motion for Reconsideration (DN 50) is DENIED.  
 Additionally, because no discovery has taken place as between the plaintiff and defendant 
TD Bank and because the plaintiff has not made initial disclosures, this matter requires a new 
scheduling order. This matter has been previously referred to the Honorable Regina S. Edwards, 
United States Magistrate Judge for, among other things, the entry of scheduling orders. Thus, the 
magistrate judge has been authorized and empowered to conduct all necessary scheduling 
conferences, hearings or other proceedings.  Accordingly, for the purpose of setting a scheduling 
conference with the magistrate judge, within thirty (30) days of the date on which this Order is 
entered in the docket of this case , the plaintiff and TD Bank’s counsel shall jointly contact 
Case Manager Ashley Henry at ashley_henry@kywd.uscourts.gov. 
 IT IS SO ORDERED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cc: Plaintiff, pro se 
 Counsel of Record 
 
February 23, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-00197-CRS-RSE     Document 56     Filed 02/24/26     Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight