Shorts-Watson v. Schlee & Stillman LLC et al
Filing
12
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 3/12/2014. (nmfn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RENEE SHORTS-WATSON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
) Civ. No. 12-1713-SLR
v.
)
SCHLEE & STILLMAN, LLC and
ANDREW WHITEHEAD, ESQ.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
Renee Shorts-Watson, ProSe Plaintiff. Newark, Delaware.
Andrew Whitehead, Esq. of Delmar, Delaware. Attorney for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
March JJ-, 2013
Wilmington, Delaware
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 17, 2012, Renee Shorts-Watson, a prose plaintiff, filed suit
against Schlee & Stillman, LLC and Andrew Whitehead, Esq. ("defendants"), alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 ("FDCPA"), and
Delaware's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 6 Del. C.§ 2532 ("DTPA"). (D. I. 3)
Presently before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. 1 (D .I. 8)
Plaintiff has filed opposition to the motion. 2 (D.I. 10) For the reasons that follow,
defendants' motion will be granted.
II. BACKGROUND 3
On February 13, 2012, defendant Schlee & Stillman, LLC ("S&S"), attorneys for
Discover Bank, notified plaintiff that her account was referred for collection and that the
debt would be assumed to be valid unless plaintiff disputed all or any part of the debt
1
Aithough captioned as a motion to dismiss, defendants submitted matters
outside the pleadings in support of their motion. (D.I. 8) The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provide that, when a motion to dismiss is filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and
matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the Court, the
matter shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). Prior to considering the matters submitted outside
the pleadings, the court afforded plaintiff notice and an opportunity to respond to the
motion for summary judgment. (D. I. 11) Plaintiff has not filed a response to the motion
for summary judgment.
2
Prior to the court construing defendants' motion to dismiss as a motion for
summary judgment, plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss. (D.I. 10)
3
This background is taken from the documentation provided by defendants. (D.I.
8) However, plaintiff's allegations in the complaint do not contradict the substantive
events. (D.I. 3)
within thirty days after receipt of the letter. (D.I. 8 at ex. B) Plaintiff did not respond to
this letter.
On July 2, 2012, S&S instituted a collection action against plaintiff in Justice of
the Peace Court No.9. (/d. at ex.A) On July 24, 2012, plaintiff sent S&S a "Notice of
Dispute," wherein she disputed the debt, requested verification of the debt and
information about the original lender, and sought validation of the charges and payment
history. (/d. at ex.C) On August 9, 2012, S&S responded to plaintiff's validation request
by sending monthly account statements from July 2008 until February 2012. (/d. at
ex.D)
On September 13, 2012, plaintiff and defendant Andrew Whitehead, attorney for
Discover Bank, appeared for trial in the Justice of the Peace Court. Plaintiff requested
validation of the debt, specifically seeking the credit application and all account
statements. As a result, the trial was postponed until December 20, 2012. On
September 18, 2013, S&S sent plaintiff a second validation. (/d. at ex. E)
On December 20, 2012, the Justice of Peace Court conducted a bench trial on
the allegations. (/d. at ex. F) After hearing testimony from the parties, the court
awarded judgment in favor of Discover Bank and against plaintiff, in the amount of
$1,977.91 plus court costs and post judgment interest. (/d.)
On December 17, 2012, plaintiff commenced this action.
Ill. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
3
matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The moving party bears the burden of demonstrating
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n. 10 (1986). "Facts that could alter the outcome are
'material,' and disputes are 'genuine' if evidence exists from which a rational person
could conclude that the position of the person with the burden of proof on the disputed
issue is correct." Horowitz v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co., 57 F.3d 300, 302 n. 1
(3d Cir.1995) (citations omitted). In determining whether a genuine issue of material
fact exists, "the court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence." Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150 (2000) (citing Lytle v. Household Mfg.,
Inc., 494 U.S. 545, 554-55 (1990)).
If the moving party has demonstrated an absence of material fact, the
nonmoving party then "must come forward with 'specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial."' Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56( e)). The
court will "view the underlying facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light
most favorable to the party opposing the motion." Pennsylvania Coal Ass'n v. Babbitt,
63 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir.1995). The mere existence of some evidence in support of
the nonmoving party, however, will not be sufficient for denial of a motion for summary
judgment; there must be enough evidence to enable a jury reasonably to find for the
nonmoving party on that issue. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242,
249 (1986). If the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential
element of its case with respect to which it has the burden of proof, the moving party is
3
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,
322 (1986).
The FDCPA was enacted "to eliminate abusive debt collection practices which
contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of
jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy." Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d
350, 354 (3d Cir.2000) (citations and internal quotations omitted). As Congress has
explained, "the purpose of the Act was not only to eliminate abusive debt collection
practices, but also to 'insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive
debt collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged."' Lesher v. Law Offices
of Mitchell N. Kay, PC, 650 F.3d 993, 996 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e)).
In light of the inadequacy of the existing consumer protection laws at the time,
Congress elected to give consumers a private right of action against debt collectors
who fail to comply with the FDCPA's requirements. Lesher, 650 F.3d at 996-97.
The statute is remedial and must be construed broadly to give effect to its
purpose. Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218, 221 (3d Cir. 2008). The court
analyzes alleged violations of the FDCPA under the "least sophisticated debtor"
standard. Brown v. Card Service Center, 464 F.3d 450, 453-54 (3d Cir. 2006). The
"least sophisticated debtor" is an objective standard, and "ensure[s] that the FDCPA
protects all consumers, the gullible as well as the shrewd." Wilson, 225 F.3d at 355
(quoting cases).
IV. DISCUSSION
4
Plaintiff contends defendants violated the FDCPA because: (1) they
misrepresented the character, amount or legal status of the debt; (2) presented
"documents as legal process when they are not;" and (3) used false representation or
deceptive means to collect the alleged debt. (D.I. 3 at 3-4) She avers that S&S failed
to provide proper validation because they sent "a screen print of an application not
relating to the specific complaint." 4 (D.I. 10) Additionally, she argues, inter alia, that
defendants' conduct violates the FDCPA, denies that the lawsuit at bar was filed in
retaliation and suggests that the judgment against her is on appeal and irrelevant to this
action. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants violated the DTPA by: (1) not obtaining
the license required to collect a debt; and (2) attempting to enforce a right with
knowledge that no right exists. (D.I. 3 at 4-7)
The uncontested record reflects that in February 2012, defendants wrote plaintiff
to advise that her Discover Card account was referred to collection and explained, inter
alia, the way to dispute the debt. (D.I. 8 at ex. B) There is nothing of record suggesting
that defendants had any additional contact with plaintiff until July 2, 2012, when a
collection action against plaintiff was filed in the Justice of Peace Court. (/d. at ex.A)
There is no dispute that plaintiff was properly served with the summons and complaint.
Plaintiff requested validations on July 24, 2013 and September 13, 2012. In
response, S&S provided validation of the debt on August 9, 2012 and September 19,
2013. Each validation lists the correct amount of the debt, the original creditor, as well
as account statements reflecting payments and purchases. (D. I. 8 at exs.C & D)
4
A copy of the screen print was not provided to the court.
5
On December 20, 2012, a Justice of the Peace presided over a bench trial,
wherein each party had an opportunity to be heard. At the end of the trial, the court
ruled against plaintiff and in favor of defendants. Although plaintiff suggests the matter
is under appeal and, presumably, has no relation to the issues at bar, she has not
provided any documentation to reflect a change in the Justice of the Peace court's
decision or judgment. The court concludes that this record contains no evidence of any
violation of the FDCPA.
With respect to the remaining claims premised on state law violations, summary
judgment is also warranted because the DTPA does not require law firms to obtain debt
collection licenses and the documentation of record demonstrates that there was a debt
to be collected.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted.
An order shall issue.
6
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?