Ingiosi v. NCO Financial Systems Inc.
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 7/28/2014. (snb, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SHARON INGIOSI,
Plaintiff,
v.
NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) Civ. No. 13-1567-SLR
) Del. Com. Pl. No. CPU4-13-0027896-13
)
)
)
Sharon lngiosi, Newark, Delaware. Pro se Plaintiff.
JosephS. Shannon and Artemio C. Aranilla, II, Esquires, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner,
Coleman & Goggin, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
.Jot ,
Dated: July
2014
Wilmington, Delaware
~0
, District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Sharon lngiosi ("plaintiff') who proceeds prose, filed this lawsuit in the
Court of Common Pleas for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692, et seq. Defendant NCO Financial Systems, Inc. ("NCO") removed the matter to
this court on September 17, 2013. (D.I. 1)
II. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that NCO, a collection agency, violated the FDCPA in August
2011, when it intercepted plaintiff's water payment check, made payable to Artesian
Water Co., and cashed it to pay a default debt with NCO. Plaintiff alleges that she
never had an account with NCO. Plaintiff received a disconnect notice in September.
Plaintiff complained to the water company and was told that it had a working partnership
with NCO to help it collect default money owed to it. Plaintiff was advised by the water
company that her money would be returned. The money was returned and the water
company waived all late fees. Plaintiff later discovered that her daughter has an
account with NCO, although plaintiff and her daughter have different names. Plaintiff
alleges that NCO engaged in illegal conduct. She seeks $15,000 in compensatory
damages.
Presently before the court is NCO's motion for judgment on the pleadings,
opposed by plaintiff. (D.I. 5) The court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
For the following reasons, the court will grant the motion.
Ill. LEGAL STANDARDS
When deciding a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, a district court
must view the facts and inferences to be drawn from the pleadings in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party. Green v. Fund Asset Mgmt., L.P., 245 F.3d 214, 220
(3d Cir. 2001 ). The motion can be granted only if no relief could be afforded under any
set of facts that could be provided. Turbe v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 938 F.2d
427, 428 (3d Cir. 1991); see also Cardio-Medical Associates, Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester
Med. Ctr., 536 F. Supp. 1065, 1072 (E. D. Pa.1982) ("If a complaint contains even the
most basic of allegations that, when read with great liberality, could justify plaintiffs
claim for relief, motions for judgment on the pleadings should be denied."). However,
the court need not adopt conclusory allegations or statements of law. In re General
Motors Class EStock Buyout Sec. Litig., 694 F.Supp. 1119, 1125 (D. Del. 1988).
Judgment on the pleadings will only be granted if it is clearly established that no
material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Jablonski v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 863 F.2d 289, 290 (3d
Cir. 1988).
IV. DISCUSSION
According to NCO, the original complaint was filed on August 26, 2013 and
served on August 28, 2013. NCO seeks judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that
plaintiff's claim was filed after the expiration of FDCPA's one-year statute of limitations.
Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that "the average person does not have
knowledge of the statute of limitations but there are many violations committed not just
the[FDCPA]." (D.I.18)
2
Any claim brought pursuant to the FDCPA must be filed within one year after the
date of the alleged violation. 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d). It is evident from the filings that the
complaint was filed well-past the one-year limitation period. According to the complaint,
the alleged FDCPA violation occurred in August 2011, but plaintiff did not file this action
until August 2013. While plaintiff claims that the average person does not have
knowledge of the statute of limitations, ignorance of the law is not a basis for tolling the
statute of limitations. See School Dist. of Allentown v. Marshall, 657 F.2d 16, 21 (3d
Cir. 1981). Plaintiff's FDCPA is time-barred. Therefore, the court will grant NCO's
motion for judgment on the pleadings.
V. CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the court will grant NCO's motion for judgment on the
pleadings. (0.1. 5)
An appropriate order will issue.
3
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?