Robinson, et al v. Option One Mortgage
ORDER denying 16 Motion for Default Judgment; granting 21 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on October 28, 2013. (lw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
GEORGE C. ROBINSON and
ELIZABETH ROBINSON, husband and wife
Civil No. 02-2282
OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORP.
Now on this 28th day of October, 2013, the above referenced
matter comes on for consideration of plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion
for Default Judgment (doc. 16) and defendant’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (doc. 21).
The Court, being well and sufficiently
advised, finds and orders as follows:
The plaintiffs initially filed the complaint in this
matter on December 16, 2002 asserting claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
On December 17, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a Petition
for Bankruptcy Relief in the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Arkansas, Case No. 2:02-bk-78027.
administratively terminating the matter during the pendency of
plaintiffs’ bankruptcy action.
The order states “Plaintiffs may
move to re-open upon conclusion of said proceedings.”
The plaintiffs’ bankruptcy case was terminated by way
of an Order of Discharge on May 9, 2006.
Almost seven (7) years later, on May 6, 2013, the
plaintiffs moved to reopen this matter. The plaintiffs then filed
the instant motion for default judgment on June 28, 2013.
The defendants have responded to the motion for default
judgment, and have moved for summary judgment.
dispute that service was proper and argue that summary judgment
should be granted as plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute
of limitations, laches, judicial estoppel, collateral estoppel,
and res judicata.
The Court agrees with the defendants’ arguments. Given
the fact that the plaintiffs’ bankruptcy case was terminated on
May 9, 2006, and the fact that the plaintiffs failed to assert, or
disclose, their claims against the defendants in their bankruptcy
pleadings, the plaintiffs’ claims are barred. See Baker v. Baker,
951 F.2d 922 (8th Cir. 1991)(“Laches precludes a lawsuit when a
asserting his claim, resulting in prejudice to the defendant.”)
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that
that plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Default Judgment
(doc. 16) is denied;
and defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 21)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren
JIMM LARRY HENDREN
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?