Robert Horowitz v. Federal Insurance Company
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-01959-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-1769]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT HOROWITZ; CATHY HOROWITZ,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a Chubb & Son, a division of
Federal Insurance Company,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District
Submitted: February 28, 2017
March 10, 2017
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John S. Lopatto III, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.
Hemmendinger, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
(LexisNexis 2013) (MCDCA), and the Maryland Collection Agency
(LexisNexis 2015) (MCALA), by funding a state court action for
Federal’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a Fed. R.
Resorts Md., LLC, 820 F.3d 655, 658 (4th Cir. 2016).
a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts
to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
Bell Atl. Corp.
standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Pg: 3 of 3
To state a cause of action under the MCDCA, the Horowitzes
were required to assert that Federal was a collector—that is, “a
arising out of a consumer transaction.”
Md. Code Ann., Com. Law
To state a claim under the MCALA, the Horowitzes
had to allege that Federal was a collection agency—that is, “a
person who engages directly or indirectly in the business of
collecting for, or soliciting from another, a consumer claim.”
Md. Code Ann., Bus. Reg. § 7-101(c)(1)(i) (LexisNexis 2015).
The Horowitzes failed on both fronts.
Although the complaint
legal representation, it fell short of plausibly asserting that
Federal here acted as a collector or a collection agency as
defined by the state statutes in Maryland.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?