Bureaus Investment Group #1, LLC v. Stewart
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that Defendants Mark Chambless and Chambless Math & Carr, P.C.'s motion to dismiss (Doc. # 191 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART: the motion is GRANTED as to Counts I, III, and V, which are DISMISSED with prejudice; the motion is DENIED with respect to Count IV. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on July 1, 2015. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ALLIE J. STEWART,
GROUP, LLC, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-1019-WKW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Mark Chambless
and Chambless, Math & Carr, P.C., which has been fully briefed. (Docs. # 191,
204, 216.) Upon consideration of the motion, the court concludes that it is due to
be granted in part and denied in part.
I. JURISIDICTION AND VENUE
Subject-matter jurisdiction is exercised pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1367 and 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). Personal jurisdiction and venue are uncontested
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A defendant may raise a statute of limitations defense in a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion when the complaint shows on its face that the limitations period has run.
Avco Corp. v. Precision Air Parts, Inc., 676 F.2d 494, 495 (11th Cir. 1982).
Otherwise, when evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the court must take the facts alleged in the complaint as
true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Resnick v.
AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317, 1321–22 (11th Cir. 2012). To survive Rule 12(b)(6)
scrutiny, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
“[F]acial plausibility” exists “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
Plaintiff Allie Stewart was sued in Macon County Circuit Court on a debt on
May 22, 2008. The plaintiff in the collection suit identified itself as “Bureaus
Investment Group #1, LLC.” (Third Amended Compl. at ¶ 53.) Defendant Mark
Chambless is an Alabama attorney and a member of Defendant Chambless Math &
Carr, P.C. (hereinafter “the firm”). Mr. Chambless filed the debt collection suit
against Ms. Stewart and continued to represent Bureaus Investment Group #1,
LLC, in that action.
A proposed consent judgment was entered against Ms. Stewart on November
19, 2008, and she began making payments to Mr. Chambless’s firm, but Ms.
Stewart later learned that Bureaus Investment Group #1, LLC, was not licensed or
registered in Alabama. She thus requested that the consent judgment be vacated so
that she could defend the suit. The Macon County Circuit Court granted Ms.
Stewart’s Rule 60(b) motion and vacated the consent judgment in February 2010,
over the plaintiff’s objection. Ms. Stewart made eight payments to Mr.
Chambless’s firm before the judgment was vacated. Mr. Chambless continued to
represent his client through June 22, 2010, when he moved to voluntarily dismiss
the suit against Ms. Stewart.
The true legal name of the owner of Ms. Stewart’s debt is Bureaus
Investment Group Portfolio No. 1, LLC. Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio
No. 1, LLC, and other similarly named entities (e.g., No. 2, No. 3, etc., hereinafter
the “Portfolio Defendants”) are Illinois limited liability companies whose sole
member is Bureaus Investment Group, LLC. Bureaus Investment Group, LLC, is
also an Illinois limited liability company.
The Portfolio Defendants have no
employees and are allegedly run by a corporation with employees, The Bureaus,
Inc. The Bureaus, Inc., is or was owned and operated by three individuals named
as Defendants in this action:
Michael Slotky, Burton Slotky, and Aristotle
Sangalang.1 The court refers collectively to the Portfolio Defendants, Bureaus
Investment Group, LLC, and The Bureaus, Inc., as “the Bureaus entities.” Ms.
Stewart complains that the Bureaus entities violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and state law by bringing collection suits in Alabama’s
state courts while fraudulently misrepresenting both their legal status as
corporations and their license to do business in Alabama. She sues on her own
behalf and on behalf of others consumers similarly situated.
Ms. Stewart alleges that Mr. Chambless and his firm are liable along with
the Bureaus entities. Mr. Chambless allegedly filed and maintained between 150
and 200 collection lawsuits, including the suit against her, in Alabama’s state
courts on behalf of the Bureaus entitites. Ms. Stewart claims that in every instance,
Mr. Chambless used “false names and false corporate designations” and falsely
represented that the businesses were “corporation[s] licensed to do business in the
State of Alabama.” (Third Am. Compl. at ¶ 12.)
This case originated as a counterclaim to the debt collection suit in Macon
County filed by “Bureaus Investment Group #1, LLC.” Ms. Stewart filed her
counterclaim on March 9, 2010. (Doc. # 1-3.) Once the original action against her
was dismissed and the parties were realigned, Bureaus Investment Group #1, LLC,
Burton Slotky died November 5, 2014. (Doc. # 218 (Suggestion of Death).) His Estate
has been substituted as a party.
a nonexistent entity later correctly identified as Bureaus Investment Group
Portfolio No. 1, LLC, removed this case to federal court in December 2010. (Doc.
# 1.) In response to several motions to dismiss, Ms. Stewart has amended her
complaint three times, and only in the most recent iteration, filed July 30, 2014,
has she implicated Mr. Chambless and his firm. Ms. Stewart first mentioned Mr.
Chambless and his firm as prospective defendants in her motion for leave to file a
third amended complaint, filed March 14, 2014. (See Doc. # 142.) Ms. Stewart
has represented that “[p]rior to the deposition of [Mr.] Sangalang [in February
2014], [she] was not aware” that the decision to plead that the non-existent
Bureaus entities were “corporation[s] licensed to do business in Alabama”
allegedly was made by Mr. Chambless rather than by the Bureaus Defendants.
(Doc. # 147, at 8–9.)
She also learned at that time that Mr. Chambless was
responsible for preparing the “authorization and verification forms” verifying that
debts were owned by non-existent Bureaus entities. (Doc. # 147, at 9.)
On June 2, 2014, Ms. Stewart’s motion for leave to amend the complaint
was granted in part to allow the joinder of Mr. Chambless and the firm. (See Doc.
# 157.) In the Third Amended Complaint, Ms. Stewart sues Mr. Chambless and
the firm for violating the FDCPA (Count I), for wanton and/or intentional conduct
(Count III), for money had and received (Count IV), and for negligent, reckless,
and/or wanton training, monitoring, and/or supervision (Count V – against the firm
only). So far, Ms. Stewart and the Bureaus entities have engaged in very little
discovery, and despite being in this court for four-and-half years, this case has
made little progress beyond the pleading and motion-to-dismiss stage.
Mr. Chambless and his firm contend that Ms. Stewart’s claims against them
(Counts I, III, IV, and V) are time-barred, fail to state claims upon which relief can
be granted, or both. Their arguments are discussed count by count.
FDCPA Claim (Count I)
FDCPA: The Statute of Limitations and Discovery Rule
Ms. Stewart alleges that Defendants’ offensive conduct in state court
violated multiple provisions of the FDCPA. The FDCPA requires that actions be
brought “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692k(d). The statute of limitations begins to run on the date the debt collector
last engages in conduct offensive of the FDCPA. Maloy v. Phillips, 64 F.3d 607,
608 (11th Cir. 1995).
A discovery rule “protects plaintiffs who are unaware of their injury, while
requiring those plaintiffs who have ‘discovered’ their injury to file suit within the
prescribed [statutory] period.” White v. Mercury Marine, Div. of Brunswick, Inc.,
129 F.3d 1428, 1433 (11th Cir. 1997). It therefore “allow[s] a claim to accrue
when the litigant first knows or with due diligence should know facts that will
form the basis for an action.” Merck & Co. v. Reynolds, 559 U.S. 633, 646 (2010)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This court has concluded, when
considering a previous motion to dismiss in this case, that there is no discovery
rule allowing the statute of limitations to be tolled until the debtor knows or has
reason to know of an alleged FDCPA violation. Stewart v. Bureaus Inv. Grp. No.
1, LLC, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1142, 1159 (M.D. Ala. 2014) (citing Cooper v. F.A. Mgmt.
Solutions, Inc., 8:06–CV–751–T–27MA P, 2007 WL 4326800, at *4 (M.D. Fla.
Dec. 7, 2007)).
Mr. Chambless and his firm contend that the offensive conduct complained
of occurred on the date that the state court collection suit was filed, May 22, 2008.
Alternatively, they argue that the latest possible occurrence of offensive conduct
was September 30, 2008, when Mr. Chambless filed a motion for consent
judgment. Ms. Stewart moved to amend her complaint to add Mr. Chambless and
his firm on March 14, 2014. (Doc. # 142.) Using either date proposed by Mr.
Chambless, the claims are obviously far beyond the one-year statutory limit. Mr.
Chambless continued to represent Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 1, LLC
through 2010, but even if it assumed that he violated the FDCPA as late as 2010,
Count I is still untimely.
Mr. Chambless and his firm argue further that Ms. Stewart knew of the
Bureaus entities’ “naming violations” no later than March 30, 2012. (Doc. # 191,
at 13–14.)2 Ergo, even if a discovery rule was available to Ms. Stewart, it would
not save this fraction of her FDCPA claim because she waited until 2014 to amend
Ms. Stewart does not argue expressly that a discovery rule saves her claims
against Mr. Chambless and his firm, but she does argue that she was ignorant of
the facts to support a claim against Mr. Chambless and his firm. She contends, as
she did when she moved for leave to amend her complaint, that she lacked
awareness of Mr. Chambless or his firm’s alleged culpability until she deposed Mr.
Sangalang in February 2014. (See Doc. # 204, at 13, 16–17.) Ms. Stewart claims
that, until that deposition, she mistakenly believed that Mr. Chambless made every
allegedly false representation in the state court case pursuant to the directives of or
on the basis of information supplied by the Bureaus entities. Ms. Stewart focuses
on Mr. Chambless’s awareness of her “misimpression” from the outset of this suit
and asserts that her amendments should relate back to the filing of her original
complaint. (Doc. # 204, at 17.) She also excuses her untimely claim by asserting
that the Bureaus entities failed to timely disclose, pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1), Mr.
Chambless and his firm as parties that might have discoverable information. (Doc.
# 204, at 9.)
Mr. Chambless and the firm cite an affidavit and email attachment submitted by the
Bureaus entities’ defense counsel in this litigation that shows counsel informed Ms. Stewart’s
counsel on March 30, 2012 that Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 1, LLC was the true
name of the entity that sued her. (Doc. # 163-1, at 7.)
Ms. Stewart has always understood that Mr. Chambless and his firm
represented the Bureaus entity that sued her and that they could have been
potentially liable to her. The parties disagree whether Ms. Stewart may be allowed
to evade the statute of limitations defense by asserting that she was unaware of or
misinformed about Mr. Chambless’s actual responsibility for allegedly violating
the FDCPA. It is not clear whether Ms. Stewart contests the court’s previous
conclusion that a discovery rule does not apply in FDCPA actions, but, in accord
with the court’s ruling in July 2014, the court finds that the untimely joinder of Mr.
Chambless and his firm is not saved by any discovery rule.
Without a discovery rule, Ms. Stewart must rely on the relation-back
Since 1966, Rule 15 has allowed the addition of new parties by
amendment after the expiration of the statute of limitations if the amendment
relates back to the filing of the original complaint. Today, Rule 15(c)(1) provides:
An amendment to a pleading relates back to the date of the original
(C) the amendment changes the party or the naming of the party
against whom a claim is asserted, if Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is satisfied3
and if, within the period provided by Rule 4(m) for serving the
summons and complaint, the party to be brought in by amendment:
Rule 15(c)(1)(B) requires that the claim must have “ar[isen] out of the same conduct,
transaction or occurrence set out – or attempted to be set out – in the original pleading.”
(i) received such notice of the action that it will not be
prejudiced in defending on the merits; and
(ii) knew or should have known that the action would have been
brought against it, but for a mistake concerning the proper
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1) (emphasis added).
It is undisputed that the same transaction requirement in Rule 15(c)(1)(B) is
satisfied and that Mr. Chambless and his firm were aware of Ms. Stewart’s original
countersuit within the 120 days allowed in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Ms. Stewart and Mr. Chambless disagree about many substantial issues including:
(1) whether Rule 15(c)(1)(C)’s reference to a “change” of party comprehends the
joinder of an entirely new party, which has been a stranger to the action, as a
defendant in addition to the original defendants, or whether a “change” of party
encompasses only those situations when an amendment totally replaces a formerly
named defendant with the newly named defendant; (2) whether there was a
“mistake” regarding the proper defendant; (3) if there was a mistake, whether Mr.
Chambless and his firm was aware or should have been aware within the 120-day
period of service that but for the mistake, they would have been proper defendants;
and (4) whether Mr. Chambless and his firm will be prejudiced by defending Ms.
Stewart’s claims on the merits. The court needs to address only the first two
issues, and because the interpretation of the phrase “changes the party” is the most
fundamental issue, the court begins there.
Amendment “Changes the Party”
In their initial and reply briefs, Mr. Chambless and the firm cite several
persuasive authorities that explicitly state that the joinder of a new defendant, in
addition to the original defendant, does not relate back. For instance, in Telesaurus
VPC, LLC v. Power, No. CV 07-01311-PHX-NVW, 2011 WL 5024239 (D. Ariz.
Oct. 21, 2011), the court reasoned that the plain language of Rule 15 advises that
amendments relate back only when “the plaintiff redirect[s] an existing claim
toward a different party, and drop[s] the original party.” Id. at *3. The court relied
on Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii)’s description of the plaintiff’s “mistake concerning the
proper party’s identity,” and reasoned that “‘[p]roper party’ necessarily implies an
‘improper party,’ not simply some other party.” Id. (emphasis added).
Other federal district and circuit courts are in accord. See In re Vitamin C
Antitrust Litig., 995 F. Supp. 2d 125, 129, 129–31 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (“Rule
15(c)(1)(C) does not encompass just any mistake.
‘concerning the proper party’s identity.’
It requires a mistake
As a matter of plain language, this
provision would appear to include only ‘wrong party’ cases, and not ‘additional
party’ cases. . . . In an ‘additional party’ case like this one, there generally will be
no ‘mistake concerning’ the proper party’s ‘identity.’”); Jadco Enters., Inc. v.
Fannon, No. CIV.A. 6:12-225-DCR, 2013 WL 6055170, at *5 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 15,
2013) (citing Asher v. Unarco Material Handling, Inc., 596 F.3d 313, 318 (6th Cir.
2010)) (“Rule 15(c) does not allow a relation back when a plaintiff learns more
about a case through discovery then attempts to broaden liability to attach new
parties in addition to ones already before the court.”); see also Venezia v. 12th &
Div. Props., LLC, No. 3:09-CV-430, 2010 WL 3122787, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 6,
2010) (also citing Asher, 596 F.3d at 318); Asten v. City of Boulder, No. 08-CV00845-PAB-MEH, 2010 WL 5464298, at *6 (D. Colo. Sept. 28, 2010) report and
recommendation adopted, No. 08-CV-00845-PAB-MEH, 2010 WL 5464297
(D. Colo. Dec. 29, 2010).4
Some of these courts have relied not only on Rule 15’s plain language but
also upon the language of the advisory committee notes to Rule 15(c) as the Rule
has been amended over time. See, e.g., In re Vitamin C, 995 F. Supp. 2d at 129 n.2
(citing the 1991 advisory committee’s note and observing that the note only
addresses situations involving “wrong parties” – not “additional parties” who were
misnamed or misidentified in the original complaint); Telesaurus, 2011 WL
characteriz[ation of] the  amendment [to Rule 15(c)] as the defendant-
Independent research has revealed other courts which have interpreted Rule 15(c)’s
language in the same fashion. See Miracle of Life, L.L.C. v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 368
F. Supp. 2d 499, 502 (D.S.C. 2005) (citing Onan v. Cnty. of Roanoke, Va., 52 F.3d 321 (4th Cir.
1995)); Wilson v. U.S. Gov’t, 23 F.3d 559, 563 (1st Cir. 1994); Worthington v. Wilson, 8 F.3d
1253, 1256 (7th Cir. 1993); Schieszler v. Ferrum Coll., 233 F. Supp. 2d 796, 801 (W.D. Va.
2002). These precedents all comport with the Supreme Court’s instruction that the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure be given their plain meaning. See Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entm’t Grp.,
493 U.S. 120, 123 (1989).
oriented analog to [Rule] 17(a)’s plaintiff-oriented real party in interest rules” and
the 1966 advisory committee’s express connection of “what is now Rule
15(c)(1)(C) . . . with the policy of the statute of limitations” to “let[ ] stale claims
die,” except where “the plaintiff mistakenly believed that some other party caused
the alleged injury”).5
Ms. Stewart argues that the Supreme Court held in Krupski v. Costa
Crociere S. p. A., 560 U.S. 538, 541 (2010), that “relation back under Rule
15(c)(1)(C) depends on what the party to be added knew or should have known,
not on the amending party’s knowledge or its timeliness in seeking to amend the
pleading.” (emphasis added). (See Doc. # 204, at 14.) Ms. Stewart stresses that
Krupski used the more open-ended word “added” as opposed to the more
restrictive word “substituted,” yet she neglects to note that the courts in
Telesaurus, In re Vitamin C, Jadco, Venezia, and Asten all interpreted Rule 15(c)
after and in light of Krupski and arrived at conclusions in stark contrast to her
Further, Krupski was a “wrong party” case and involved the less
controversial substitution of one defendant for another defendant, rather than the
addition of a new party. See id., 560 U.S. at 544 (stating that the originally named
defendant was dismissed by stipulation after plaintiff amended her complaint).
“Although not binding, the interpretations in the Advisory Committee [n]otes are nearly
universally accorded great weight in interpreting federal rules.” Horenkamp v. Van Winkle &
Co., 402 F.3d 1129, 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Ms. Stewart also relies upon an opinion from this district, Chumney v. U.S.
Repeating Arms Co., 196 F.R.D. 419 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (DeMent, J.), interpreting
Eleventh Circuit precedent on relation-back doctrine. (See Doc. # 204, at 14). In
Chumney, a defendant argued that the “[p]laintiff’s amendment d[id] not meet the
requirements of Rule 15(c) because her amendment add[ed] a defendant, rather
than change[d] the defendant named in the original complaint.” Id. at 429. The
Chumney court opined that Eleventh Circuit’s precedent in Powers v. Graff, 148
F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 1998), did not support that argument. 196 F.R.D. at 429. The
court stated that “under Powers, the relevant issue . . . is not whether the
amendment seeks to ‘add’ or ‘change’ a defendant, but instead whether the
amendment corrects a ‘mistake’ about the identity of the defendant.” Id.6 The
Chumney court concluded that the plaintiff’s amendment related back because the
plaintiff did not know the defendant’s involvement in the manufacture of a
defective product until after the running of the statute of limitations.
The parties have not submitted, and the court is unaware of, any case from
the Eleventh Circuit directly addressing the interpretation of Rule 15(c)(1)(C)
offered by Mr. Chambless and his firm. It is significant that Powers did not
confront the issue of whether a “change in party” encompasses an addition of a
In Powers, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination that an
amendment against newly added defendants did not relate back because “the newly added
defendants were known to the plaintiff before the running of the statute of limitations and . . .
should not necessarily have known that, absent a mistake by the plaintiff, they would have been
sued.” 148 F.3d at 1226.
defendant as opposed to the substitution of a defendant. Rather, Powers addressed
a separate but related issue – whether a plaintiff knew about his prospective
defendant’s identity prior to the running of the statute of limitations. The district
court in Chumney inferred, from Powers’s silence, that the wrong defendant/new
defendant distinction was irrelevant to the Eleventh Circuit. But an argument
similar to Mr. Chambless’s was neither accepted nor rejected by the court in
Powers. Hence, the court finds Chumney and its interpretation of Powers to be
Based on the plain language of Rule 15 and its allowance for an amendment
which “changes the party” where there has been “a mistake concerning the proper
party’s identity,” and in the absence of Eleventh Circuit precedent to the contrary,
the court concludes that the relation-back doctrine does not apply in instances
where a plaintiff attempts to join entirely new defendants in addition to existing
defendants. Even if the court is incorrect on this point, Mr. Chambless and his
firm still prevail on another argument.
A “Mistake” Regarding the “Proper Party’s Identity”
Mr. Chambless and his firm also assert that Ms. Stewart made no “mistake”
about their identities. They contend that Ms. Stewart cannot claim that she lacked
awareness of their alleged liability because the law is clear that an attorney
engaged in debt collection litigation on behalf of a creditor may be held liable
under the FDPCA and because Ms. Stewart has admitted to knowing that Mr.
Chambless was Bureaus Investment Portfolio No. 1, LLC’s legal representative.
(Doc. # 191, at 30–31, 37–38 (citing Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 292 (1995)
and Ms. Stewart’s deposition testimony).) Mr. Chambless and his firm aver that
“general mistakes of law, mistakes of fact, and mistakes as to the existence of
causes of action are not sufficient grounds” to support relation back. (Doc. # 191,
at 37.) They thus assert that there was no “mistake,” but instead that Ms. Stewart
made a “deliberate decision” not to sue Mr. Chambless from the outset. (Doc.
# 191, at 31 (citing Powers, 148 F.3d at 1227).)
In response, Ms. Stewart argues that, while she always knew of Defendants’
role as the attorney and law firm in the debt collection case, she “misunderstood
the role [they] played in deciding to wrongfully identify the collection-plaintiff as a
corporation licensed to do business in Alabama” until she deposed Mr. Sangalang
in February 2014. (Doc. # 204, at 16–17.)
Ms. Stewart’s excuse is unacceptable according to Eleventh Circuit
precedent. The Circuit reasoned in Powers that “[n]othing in the Rule or in the
[advisory committee] [n]otes indicates that [relation back] applies to a plaintiff
who was fully aware of the potential defendant’s identity but not of its
responsibility for the harm alleged.” 148 F.3d at 1227 (quoting Rendall-Speranza
v. Nassim, 107 F.3d 913, 918 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). Powers, therefore, squarely
confronts Ms. Stewart’s late claims against Mr. Chambless and his firm. See also
Nobles v. Rural Cmty. Ins. Servs., 303 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1287 (M.D. Ala. 2004)
(Thompson, J.) (proposing that the plaintiff’s purported “mistake” under Rule
15(c) was “a mistake in legal judgment, not a mistake in the naming of the party,”
and thus concluding that there could be no relation back).
Ms. Stewart also turns (again) to Krupski, where the Supreme Court said that
“it would be error to conflate knowledge of a party’s existence with the absence of
mistake.” 560 U.S. at 548. The Court offered the following example:
A plaintiff may know that a prospective defendant – call him party A
– exists, while erroneously believing him to have the status of party B.
Similarly, a plaintiff may know generally what party A does while
misunderstanding the roles that party A and party B played in the
“conduct, transaction, or occurrence” giving rise to her claim. If the
plaintiff sues party B instead of party A under these circumstances,
she has made a “mistake concerning the proper party’s identity”
notwithstanding her knowledge of the existence of both parties.
Id. at 549. The Court explained further:
[A] plaintiff might know that the prospective defendant exists but
nonetheless harbor a misunderstanding about his status or role in the
events giving rise to the claim at issue, and she may mistakenly
choose to sue a different defendant based on that misimpression. That
kind of deliberate but mistaken choice does not foreclose a finding
that Rule 15(c)(1)(C)(ii) has been satisfied.
Id. Ms. Stewart claims that Krupski’s “hypothetical is directly on point” with her
situation. (Doc. # 204, at 16.) She admits that she knew of Mr. Chambless and his
firm and their involvement in the debt collection suit prior to pleading the Third
Amended Complaint, but she says she did not know that they were culpable parties
until she conducted discovery in 2014.
However, Ms. Stewart cannot read herself into the Krupski hypothetical,
which corresponded to the facts of that case – not the facts in this case. There, the
plaintiff mistakenly sued one business entity (Costa Cruise Lines) instead of
another (Costa Crociere S. p. A.). 560 U.S. at 543. Here, Ms. Stewart has not
mistakenly sued the Bureaus Defendants “instead of” Mr. Chambless and his firm,
and she has not “mistakenly cho[sen] to sue a different defendant (i.e., the Bureaus
Defendants) based on [a] misimpression” of the facts. She has always known of
Mr. Chambless and his firm but not of their alleged responsibility for wrongdoing
under the FDCPA. Under Powers, Ms. Stewart’s explanation does not justify
relation back because her “proposed amendment [i]s not due to the kind of
mistaken identity addressed by Rule 15(c).” 148 F.3d at 1228. See also Krupski,
560 U.S. at 549 (“[M]aking a deliberate choice to sue one party instead of another
while fully understanding the factual and legal differences between the two parties
is the antithesis of making a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.”).
Conclusion on Relation Back
In sum, the court concludes that the motion to dismiss the FDCPA claims
against Mr. Chambless and his firm are due to be granted because the
circumstances do not meet Rule 15(c)’s requirement that there be a “change” of
party or a “mistake concerning the proper party’s identity.” For these reasons, it is
unnecessary to reach the parties’ additional disputes as to whether Mr. Chambless
and his firm received adequate notice, within 120 days of the filing of the original
counterclaim (the first operative complaint), that the action would have been
brought against them but for Ms. Stewart’s purported mistake, or whether
permitting relation back would unduly prejudice Mr. Chambless and the firm in
defending on the merits. Likewise, the court need not consider Mr. Chambless and
the firm’s alternative argument that the March 2010 counterclaim was not filed
within one year of any conduct by Mr. Chambless that offends the FDCPA. (See
Doc. # 191, at 41.) Ms. Stewart’s FDCPA claims against Mr. Chambless and his
firm do not relate back to the date of the original pleading, as required by Rule
15(c)(1)(C), and are therefore barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of
Wanton and/or Intentional Conduct (Count III)
Failure to State a Claim
Mr. Chambless and his firm contend that there is no cognizable Alabama tort
for wanton or intentional conduct on the basis of the facts alleged against them in
the Third Amended Complaint (i.e., Defendants’ filing of documents in state court
which misrepresented the Bureaus Defendants’ names, corporate status, and
license to conduct business in Alabama). This court has recently determined in a
similar FDCPA-based action that there is no Alabama state-law cause of action for
willful or wanton misconduct related to the filing and maintenance of a debt
collection suit based on insufficient evidence. See Prince v. LVNV Funding, LLC,
No. 2:13-CV-462-WKW, 2014 WL 3361912, at *7 (M.D. Ala. July 9, 2014)
opinion withdrawn and vacated, 2014 WL 7506753 (M.D. Ala. July 21, 2014).7
The court arrived at its determination in Prince because the Alabama
Supreme Court has expressly held that “a claim of negligent or wanton prosecution
of a civil action is not a cognizable tort claim in this state.” Ex parte Miller,
Hamilton, Snider & Odom, LLC, 942 So. 2d 334, 336 n.1 (Ala. 2006) (citing Ex
parte State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 924 So. 2d 706, 711 (Ala. 2005)); see also
Ex parte Tuscaloosa Cnty., 770 So. 2d 602, 605 (Ala. 2000) (Cutts v. Am. United
Life Ins. Co., 505 So. 2d 1211, 1214 (Ala. 1987) (“The policy disfavoring
malicious prosecution claims . . . also disfavors bringing claims arising out of facts
within the ambit of malicious prosecution but couched in other terms, especially
general allegations of negligence, willfulness, or wantonness.”)).
Ms. Stewart protests that Defendants have recast her claim as one for
malicious prosecution. (They have not.) She further disputes that Alabama does
not recognize her claim for wanton and/or intentional conduct but asserts that
wantonness is a recognized tort in Alabama. (Doc. # 204, at 23–24.) Ms. Stewart
The Prince opinion was withdrawn pursuant to the request and agreement of the parties
to dismiss that case on their own terms.
contends that she sues not simply for Defendants’ filing and maintenance of
collection lawsuits, but rather, for Defendants’ “conscious and deliberate filing of
court documents” containing false information.
(Doc. # 204, at 25.)
differently, Ms. Stewart says she sues not because Defendants simply filed a
lawsuit against her but because they made knowing misrepresentations when filing
Statute of Limitations
Even if Ms. Stewart has pleaded a cognizable state-law claim for wanton or
intentional conduct, Mr. Chambless and his firm note that she still faces a two-year
statute of limitations. (Doc. # 191, at 44 (citing Ala. Code § 6-2-38(l) and Ex parte
Capstone Bldg. Corp., 96 So. 3d 77, 90–91 (Ala. 2012)).) Ms. Stewart does not
dispute the statute of limitations but responds by adopting and incorporating her
relation back argument made in reference to the FDCPA statute of limitations.
(Doc. # 204, at 25–26.) Mr. Chambless and his firm reassert their argument that
Rule 15(c) does not allow relation back because Ms. Stewart did not make any
mistake concerning the proper party’s identity. (Doc. # 191, at 46.)8
By incorporating their relation-back arguments, the parties ask for the application of
federal law to this state-law claim. Rule 15(c)(1) provides that the court should allow an
amendment to relate back when “relation back is permitted by the law that provides the statute of
limitations applicable to the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1). In Saxton v. ACF Indus., Inc., 254
F.3d 959, 963 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc), the court held that “Rule 15(c)(1) allows federal courts
sitting in diversity to apply relation-back rules of state law where, as here, state law provides the
statute of limitations for the action.” (emphasis added). Here, the court is not sitting in diversity
but is exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Ms. Stewart’s state-law claims pursuant to 28
Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, the court finds that each of the
arguments in favor of dismissal of Count III avails. Even if Ms. Stewart has stated
a claim under Alabama law for “wanton and/or intentional conduct” – and it is
doubtful that such a claim can be brought on the facts alleged in the Third
Amended Complaint – Ms. Stewart’s claim would not relate back because there
has been no “change” of party or a “mistake concerning the proper party’s
identity” as that language is used in Rule 15(c).
Money Had and Received (Count IV)
Regarding this Count, Mr. Chambless and the firm contend that Ms. Stewart
eventually must prove that they are holding money improperly paid to them
because of some mistake or fraud. They argue that Ms. Stewart’s pleading offers
only “a bare accusation” that they hold her money and that it fails to provide facts
to support a claim, such as an allegation as to “any particular amount of money”
U.S.C. § 1367(a). One district court in this circuit has rejected the notion that Rule 15(c) and
Saxton call for the application of Alabama’s relation back doctrine to state-law claims before the
court under § 1367(a). See, e.g., Estate of Rowell v. Walker Baptist Med. Ctr., 290 F.R.D. 549,
558 (N.D. Ala. 2013) (Smith, J.). Another district court has concluded that Alabama law should
apply to federal-question cases in which state law provides the applicable statute of limitations.
See Mann v. Darden, 630 F. Supp. 2d 1305, 1311 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (Thompson, J.). The
Eleventh Circuit appears to have never decided whether its holding in Saxton extends to
supplemental state-law claims, such as Ms. Stewart’s. Even if Alabama law on relation back
applies, the language in Alabama’s version of Rule 15 is comparable to the federal rule. See Ala.
R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3)(B) (“An amendment of a pleading relates back . . . when . . . the amendment
. . . changes the party or the naming of the party . . . and . . . the party to be brought in by
amendment . . . knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the
proper party, the action would have been brought against [it]. . . .”).
owed to Ms. Stewart, or a “time frame in which [Mr.] Chambless received a sum
from her,” or a certain instance when she made a payment to him or the firm that
she did not owe. (Doc. # 191, at 48.) Without specifics, they contend that the
pleading states only a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,
which is inadequate to satisfy the Iqbal and Twombly pleading standard.9 10
Ms. Stewart says her allegations supporting Count IV are sufficiently
plausible, and she points out Mr. Chambless’s representation to the Macon County
Circuit Court, which is part of this case record, that she made eight payments to
“Bureaus Investment Group #1, LLC,” following the entry of the now vacated
consent judgment in favor of that legally non-existent entity. (See Doc. # 1-1,
at 26.) Ms. Stewart claims that whoever holds those funds is not entitled to them
because the judgment that obligated her payment was void. (Doc. # 204, at 26.)
Mr. Chambless and his firm reply that the allegations in Ms. Stewart’s
pleading are nevertheless sparse and at “a minimum, a more definite statement
must be required.” (Doc. # 216, at 29.)
There is no statute of limitations defense asserted in the motion with respect to this
claim, apparently because the claim was timely. See Johnson v. Life Ins. Co. of Ala., 581 So. 2d
438, 443 (Ala. 1991) (holding that an action for money had and received is governed by a sixyear statute of limitations).
Mr. Chambless and his firm argue in the alternative that even if the claim was properly
pleaded, Ms. Stewart would be unable to prevail on the claims because she testified in a
deposition that her decision to make payments on the debt was not based on any reliance upon
Bureaus Investment Group Portfolio No. 1, LLC’s lawful, licensed ability to sue her to collect
the debt from her. (Doc. # 191, at 50 n.20.) This argument exceeds the scope of a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
“The cause of action for money had and received ‘is based upon the theory
that one person shall not be unjustly enriched at the expense of the other, and is
equitable in nature. That is to say, the action lies wherever one has received and
holds money which in good conscience belongs to another.’” Azalea City Motels,
Inc. v. First Ala. Bank of Mobile, 551 So. 2d 967, 978 (Ala. 1989) (quoting
Christie v. Durden, 88 So. 667, 668 (Ala. 1921)). It has yet to be decided which of
several Defendants holds the money that may belong to Ms. Stewart, but the
allegations are plausible that Mr. Chambless and his firm are obligated in equity to
return any funds they may hold to Ms. Stewart. The motion to dismiss Count IV is
due to be denied. Further, after four iterations of the complaint, the court is loathe
to order another, and Ms. Stewart will not be required to amend to offer Mr.
Chambless and the firm a more definite statement.
Negligent, Reckless, or Wanton Training and/or Supervision (Count V)
The firm argues that any claim against it for negligent training or
supervision of Mr. Chambless is time-barred, and further, is due to be dismissed
because it is derivative of Ms. Stewart’s time-barred FDCPA claim and the claim
for wanton and/or intentional conduct.11 “A party alleging negligent or wanton
supervision and hiring must . . . prove the underlying wrongful conduct of
Although the motion to dismiss does not expressly say so, the statute of limitations
defense to Count V is clear in the reply brief. Further, it is clear that Count V is subject to a twoyear statute of limitations. See Brown v. First Fed. Bank, 95 So. 3d 803, 813 (Ala. Civ. App.
employees.” Voyager Ins. Cos. v. Whitson, 867 So. 2d 1065, 1073 (Ala. 2003).
The firm argues that “[w]ithout [Counts I and II], there can be no cause of action
against [the firm] for the negligent supervision of [Mr. Chambless].” (Doc. # 191,
at 51.) The firm does not explain why the claim for money had and received
(Count IV) would not constitute wrongful underlying conduct to support Count V.
Nevertheless, because there can be no dispute that Count V is barred by a two-year
statute of limitations, Count V is due to be dismissed along with Counts I and III.
In accordance with the foregoing analysis, it is ORDERED that Defendants
Mark Chambless and Chambless Math & Carr, P.C.’s motion to dismiss (Doc.
# 191) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The motion is
GRANTED as to Counts I, III, and V, which are DISMISSED with prejudice. The
motion is DENIED with respect to Count IV.
DONE this 1st day of July, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?