Travis v. Joplin Metro Credit Union, et al.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
FREDRIC DARNELL TRAVIS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 3:25-cv-05103-MDH
)
JOPLIN METRO CREDIT UNION, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendants Joplin Metro Credit Union and Christi Moorehouse’s
(collectively 	“Defendants”) 	Motion 	for 	Summary 	Judgment. 	(Doc. 	28). 	Defendants 	filed
Suggestions in Support (Doc. 28-1), Plaintiff filed Suggestions in Opposition (Doc. 44),
Defendants filed a reply (Doc. 46) and Plaintiff filed a sur-reply (Doc. 47).1 The motion is now
ripe for adjudication on the merits. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of an alleged claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”)
stemming from an auto loan made from Defendant Joplin Metro Credit Union to Plaintiff Fredric
Darnell Travis. Plaintiff is a resident of Joplin, Missouri. Defendant Joplin Metro Credit Union is
1 The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendant’s Reply. (Doc. 48).
Although Plaintiff has yet to file his sur-reply as of the date of this Order, the Court has constructively construed
Plaintiff’s proposed sur-reply as filed and reviewed the arguments asserted therein. (Doc. 47, pages 5-9).
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 49 Filed 07/30/26 Page 1 of 7

2
a domestic credit union located in Joplin, Missouri. Defendant Christi Moorehouse is the President
and Chief Executive Officer at Joplin Metro Credit Union.
On October 7, 2025, Defendant Joplin Metro Credit Union filed a Petition in the Circuit
Court of Jasper County, Missouri against Plaintiff for one count of replevin and one count of breach
of contract arising from an auto loan of $7,931.00 for the purchase of a 2015 Subaru. Joplin Metro
Credit Union v. Fredric Travis, 25AP-AC01133. Plaintiff filed a Petition for Redress of Grievance.
Id. In Plaintiff’s Petition for Redress of Grievance he makes various legal arguments, that have not
been supported through case law or any other statutory provision, including that: Joplin Metro
Credit Union charged interest on Plaintiff’s auto loan in violation of the Federal Reserve Act and
Presidential Proclamation 2039;2 Joplin Metro Credit Union loaned him money when he states it
was actually the Federal Reserve Bank and that by Joplin Metro Credit Union demanding payment
on the auto loan on the 15th of every month Defendant violated Plaintiff’s constitutional and
consumer rights; and that the promissory note was the only collateral to be held in this case and
that demanding any insurance or other security on the auto loan violated the Truth in Lending Act
and other consumer credit transaction provision.
Plaintiff subsequently filed his Complaint in the current action on December 11, 2025,
which is in essence the same document as his Petition for Redress of Grievance in the state action.
On March 5, 2026, the state court held a bench trial and on March 11, 2026, the state court found
in favor of Joplin Metro Credit Union on both its Petition and Mr. Travis’s Petition for Redress of
Grievances. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one cause of action, a violation under the FCRA.3
2 The Presidential Proclamation 2039 was issued by Franklin D. Roosevelt on March 6, 1933, declaring a bank holiday
from March 6 to March 9, 1933, in response to heavy withdrawals from banking institutions.
3 Plaintiff’s Complaint lists a variety of claims that mirror those in his Petition for Redress of Grievances. (Doc. 3).
However, the Court explicitly found all of Plaintiff’s claims frivolous with the exception of his FCRA claim when
this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2, page 3). To that extent, this
case involves only one count, a violation under the FCRA.
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 49 Filed 07/30/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Defendants bring their current motion seeking summary judgment in their favor arguing that
Plaintiff’s Complaint and associated claims are barred by claim preclusion and because the present
action constitutes improper claim splitting.
STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Reich v. ConAgra, Inc., 987 F.2d 1357, 1359
(8th Cir. 1993). “Where there is no dispute of material fact and reasonable fact finders could not
find in favor of the nonmoving party, summary judgment is appropriate.” 	Quinn v. St. Louis
County, 653 F.3d 745, 750 (8th Cir. 2011). 	Initially, the moving party bears the burden of
demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 323 (1986). If the movant meets the initial step, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to
“set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). To satisfy this burden, the nonmoving party must “do more than
simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus.
Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986).
ANALYSIS
I. 	Claim Preclusion
Defendants argue that claim preclusion applies in this case and the Court should dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint. In support Defendants state that the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri
rendered a prior judgment on March 11, 2026, finding in their favor regarding Plaintiff’s FCRA
claim. Defendants assert that the state court had proper jurisdiction because Plaintiff and
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 49 Filed 07/30/26 Page 3 of 7

4
Defendants were within the state court’s in personam jurisdiction due to residing or having their
principal places of business in Jasper County, Missouri. Further, the Defendants state that the
judgment rendered by the state court constituted a final judgment on the merits set forth in
Plaintiff’s Complaint because the claims set forth by Plaintiff in the state court case and the current
action are the exact same claims. Additionally, the Defendants claim that the same parties in the
state court action are present in the current action.
Plaintiff argues that his FCRA claim does not arise from the same operative facts as the
state court repossession action but instead from Defendants’ independent statutory duties as a
furnisher of credit information. Plaintiff asserts that these duties exist under federal statutes
regardless of whether Defendants prevailed in state court. Plaintiff argues that the state court’s
dismissal of his Petition for Redress of Grievance does not constitute a merits adjudication of
Plaintiff’s FCRA claims as they require a specific factual record about Defendants’ conduct toward
credit reporting agencies that was never developed in the state repossession action. Lastly, Plaintiff
asserts that violations of the FCRA are ongoing as of July 6, 2026, and that these post-judgment
reporting failures could not have been litigated in a proceeding that concluded before they
occurred.
The doctrine of claim preclusion bars parties from relitigating matters previously
adjudicated. San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, Cal., 545 U.S. 323, 336
(2005). “Federal courts are required ‘to give preclusive effect to state-court judgments whenever
the courts of the State from which the judgments emerged would do so.’” Brown v. Kansas City
Live, LLC, 931 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1738)); Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984).
Here, the judgment at issue was rendered by the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri, so
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 49 Filed 07/30/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Missouri claim preclusion law applies. “Under Missouri law res judicata applies where (1) the
prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the decision was the final
judgment on the merits, and (3) the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were
involved in both cases.” Brown, 931 F.3d at 714 (citing Bannum, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 195
S.W.3d 541, 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (cleaned up).
The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, applies in this case and Plaintiff’s FCRA
claim is therefore barred. It is undisputed that Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this action on
December 11, 2025. (Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts (“SUMF”) ¶ 1). When Plaintiff
filed his Complaint there was an ongoing case between the parties in the Circuit Court of Jasper
County, Missouri titled Joplin Metro Credit Union v. Fredric Travis, Case No. 25AP-AC01133
that was filed on October 7, 2025. (SUMF ¶ 2). Plaintiff’s Petition for Redress of Grievance in the
state court action against Joplin Metro Credit Union is substantially the same as the current
Complaint. (SUMF ¶ 3). A bench trial in the state court action was held on March 5, 2026, and on
March 11, 2026, the state court held:
The Court finds in favor of [Joplin Metro Credit Union] and against [Fredric
Darnell Travis] on Count I of [Joplin Metro Credit Union]’s Petition, the Court also
finds in favor of the [Joplin Metro Credit Union] and against [Fredric Darnell
Travis] on Count II of [Joplin Metro Credit Union]’s Petition in the amount of
$6,609.89, plus court costs and interest at the statutory rate. The Court finds in favor
of [Joplin Metro Credit Union] and against [Fredric Darnell Travis] on [Fredric
Darnell Travis]’s Petition for Redress of Grievance, and finds in favor of [Joplin
Metro Credit Union] and against [Fredric Darnell Travis] on [Fredric Darnell
Travis]’s Motion for Abatement.
(SUMF ¶¶ 9-10) (emphasis added).
Here, the parties do not dispute that there was a prior judgment rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction or that the same parties are involved in both the state case and the current
action. The only issue that the parties present is whether Plaintiff’s FCRA claim is the same cause
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 49 Filed 07/30/26 Page 5 of 7

6
of action as in the state court judgment. Plaintiff argues that there are ongoing accounting errors
that create a new, independent cause of action not associated with the state court case, however, he
is in error. Plaintiff’s FCRA alleges states that “Defendants have failed to accurately document
balanced claimed due and failure to report the cancellation of debt, leading to inaccuracies in my
credit profile”. (Doc. 3, page 6). Plaintiff’s FCRA claim comes from his claim that Defendants
failed to “cancel his debt” and that interest charged on said loan was not authorized by virtue of a
Presidential Proclamation from 1933. The state court judgment specifically addressed the auto loan
and found that Plaintiff was not entitled to the cancellation of debt and subsequently ruled against
his FCRA claim. Plaintiff’s FCRA claim stems from the same cause of action as adjudicated by
the state court case in which there was a final judgment. Further, Plaintiff provides no proof or
evidence, 	nor 	can 	he, 	that any 	alleged 	inaccuracies stem from anything other than his
misconceptions regarding the auto loan he applied for and received from Defendant. Therefore,
the Court finds that claim preclusion, or res judicata, applies to Plaintiff’s FCRA claim. For the
reasons stated, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s FCRA Count is
GRANTED.
II. 	Other Claims
The Court, having found that res judicata applies in the case at hand and that summary
judgment is appropriate, will decline to further analyze Defendants other arguments raised in this
case.
CONCLUSION
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 49 Filed 07/30/26 Page 6 of 7

7
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
Summary judgment is hereby entered in favor of Defendants Joplin Metro Credit Union and Christi
Moorehouse.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 30, 2026
/s/ Douglas Harpool
DOUGLAS HARPOOL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-05103-MDH Document 49 Filed 07/30/26 Page 7 of 7