Robert Horowitz v. Federal Insurance Company

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:15-cv-01959-DKC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000039781].. [16-1769]

Appeal: 16-1769

Doc: 30

Filed: 03/10/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1769

ROBERT HOROWITZ; CATHY HOROWITZ,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
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
Judge. (8:15-cv-01959-DKC)

Submitted: February 28, 2017

Decided:

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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Eric
Hemmendinger, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1769

Doc: 30

Filed: 03/10/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs
this

action

alleging

Robert

against

that

Collection

Horowitz
Federal

Federal

Act,

Md.

and

Insurance

violated

Code

Cathy

the

Ann.,

Horowitz

Company

Maryland

Com.

Law

commenced

(“Federal”),
Consumer

§§ 14-201

Debt

to

-204

(LexisNexis 2013) (MCDCA), and the Maryland Collection Agency
Licensing

Act,

Md.

Code

Ann.,

Bus.

Reg.

§§ 7-101

to

-502

(LexisNexis 2015) (MCALA), by funding a state court action for
unpaid

legal

Horowitzes’

fees

brought

former

against

counsel.

The

the

Horowitzes

district

court

by

the

granted

Federal’s motion to dismiss the complaint, and we affirm.
We review de novo a district court’s ruling on a Fed. R.
Civ.

P.

factual

12(b)(6)

motion

allegations

inferences

in

the

to

as

dismiss,

true

plaintiffs’

the

complaint’s

drawing

and

taking

all

reasonable

favor.

Harbout

v.

Resorts Md., LLC, 820 F.3d 655, 658 (4th Cir. 2016).

PPE

Casino

To survive

a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts
to state a claim that is plausible on its face.
v.

Twombly,

550

U.S.

544,

570

(2007).

Bell Atl. Corp.

“The

plausibility

standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully.”

Ashcroft

v.

Iqbal,

(internal quotation marks omitted).

2

556

U.S.

662,

678

(2009)

Appeal: 16-1769

Doc: 30

Filed: 03/10/2017

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
person

collecting

or

attempting

to

collect

arising out of a consumer transaction.”
§ 14-201(b).

an

alleged

debt

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.
insinuated

that

someone

other

than

Although the complaint

Selzer

paid

for

Selzer’s

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

678.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of
the complaint.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

this

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3