Guda v. McClure and Grigsby, P.A.

Filing 30

OPINION AND ORDER denying 20 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 5/5/2017. (RKR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
BASHKIM GUDA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:16-cv-823-FtM-99MRM

MCCLURE AND GRIGSBY, P.A.,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s Amended
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #20) filed on February
24, 2017.

Plaintiff filed a Response on March 31, 2017 (Doc.

#23); a Reply (Doc. #26) and Sur-Reply (Doc. #29) were also filed.
For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.
I.
On November 8, 2016, plaintiff Bashkim Guda (plaintiff or
Guda)

filed

a

three-count

Complaint

(Doc.

#1)

alleging

that

defendant McClure and Grigsby, P.A., a debt collection agency,
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1692-1692p, by attempting to collect a debt that had been
discharged in plaintiff’s bankruptcy proceedings.

Defendant has

filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal jurisdiction of plaintiff’s
claims.

The underlying material facts, as set forth in plaintiff’s
Complaint and attachments, are as follows:
A. Bankruptcy Proceedings
In October 2009, plaintiff and his wife filed a joint Chapter
13 bankruptcy petition.

(Doc. #1, ¶ 6; Doc. #1-1.)

In the

bankruptcy schedules (Doc. #1-2) plaintiff listed a debt to “The
Greens @ Fountain Lakes” (The Greens) for $6,086.44 in unpaid
condominium association assessments in connection with property
located at 3140 Season Way, #503, Estero, FL 33928 (the Property).
(Id., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff also listed The Greens in the Creditor

Matrix filed with the bankruptcy petition.

(Doc. #1-3.)

The

Complaint states that plaintiff indicated that he would surrender
the Property in his bankruptcy in full satisfaction of the debt.
(Doc. #1, ¶ 7.)

The Chapter 13 Plan, attached as Exhibit E to the

Complaint and dated October 9, 2009, provides that plaintiff “will
surrender the following collateral in full satisfaction of the
secured portion of the claim, and the creditor is specifically
allowed to amend its claim to include an unsecured portion.

Upon

Plan confirmation, the automatic stay will be deemed lifted for
the collateral identified below for surrender and the creditor
need not file a Motion to Lift the Stay in order to repossess,
foreclose upon or sell the collateral.”

(Doc. #1-5, p. 3.)

The

Greens @ Fountain Lakes is included in the list of creditors, and

- 2 -

3140 Seasons Way #513 is included as collateral to be surrendered.
Id.)
The

Bankruptcy

Court

mailed

the

Notice

of

Chapter

13

Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors & Deadlines notice, as well
as plaintiff’s Chapter 13 Plan, to all creditors listed on the
Creditor Matrix, including The Greens.

(Doc. #1-4.)

On December

7, 2009, the meeting of creditors was held; neither the Greens nor
defendant attended the meeting.

(Doc. #1, ¶ 12.)

On June 24,

2010, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order Confirming [Chapter
13] Plan.

(Doc. #1-6.)

On February 2, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court

entered an order of discharge, which was mailed to all creditors,
including The Greens.

(Doc. #1-7.)

Neither The Greens nor

defendant objected to the order of discharge.
B. Subsequent State Court Lawsuit
On or about November 30, 2015, The Greens, by and through its
attorneys at McClure and Grigsby, P.A., filed a lawsuit against
plaintiff in the County Court for Lee County, Florida, Small Claims
Division, Case No. 15-SC-005822.

The “Statement of Claim” (Doc.

#1-8) set forth that Bashkim Guda owed The Greens at Fountain Lakes
Condominium
assessments

Association,
from

October

Inc.
23,

$4,853.81
2009

for

through

July

association
11,

2014.

Plaintiff alleges in the current case that this small claims
lawsuit was filed to collect condominium association assessments
which had been discharged in the bankruptcy case.

- 3 -

(Doc. #1, ¶ 17;

Doc. #1-8.)

Guda failed to appear in the small claims case, and

a Final Judgment was entered in that lawsuit on February 5, 2016.
(Doc. #1-9.)

The Final Judgment included assessments due from

October 24, 2009 (which it noted was a “post-bankruptcy filing
date”) to July 11, 2014, a 2014 special assessment, costs, and
attorney’s fees in the total amount of $6,749.61, plus interest
per annum.

(Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that the small claims lawsuit was filed to
collect debt which had been discharged in his bankruptcy case and
was no longer owed.

(Doc. #1, ¶17.)

Plaintiff further alleges

that defendant’s attempt to collect this debt violates several
provisions of the FDCPA because the debt in question was not
excepted from bankruptcy discharge.

(Id., ¶ 19.)

II.
Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides
that a party may move for judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the
pleadings are closed.”

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).

“Judgment on the

pleadings is proper when no issues of material fact exist, and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on
the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.
We accept all the facts in the complaint as true and view them in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

Interline

Brands, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 749 F.3d 962, 965 (11th
Cir. 2014) (internal citation omitted).

- 4 -

See also Bankers Ins. Co.

v. Fla. Residential Prop. & Cas. Joint Underwriting Ass’n, 137
F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 1998).
The Rooker–Feldman 1 doctrine “places limits on the subject
matter jurisdiction of federal district courts and courts of appeal
over certain matters related to previous state court litigation.”
Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir. 2001).

Under the

Rooker–Feldman doctrine, “federal district courts cannot review
state court final judgments because that task is reserved for state
appellate courts or, as a last resort, the United States Supreme
Court.”

Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009).

Accordingly, a federal district court lacks jurisdiction over
“cases

brought

by

state-court

losers

complaining

of

injuries

caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court
proceedings

commenced

and

inviting

rejection of those judgments.”

district

court

review

and

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic

Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005).

The Supreme Court has

found Rooker-Feldmen to apply in only two occasions – once in
Rooker, and again in Feldman.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly

cautioned that the doctrine is limited to cases brought by state
court losers which invite federal district courts to review and
reject state court final judgments.

1

Exxon Mobil Corp., 544 U.S.

See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923);
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462
(1983).

- 5 -

at 284; Skinner v. Switzer, 582 U.S. 521, 531 (2011); Lance v.
Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463 (2006).
III.
Here, a judgment on the pleadings is not appropriate because
there are disputed issues of material fact and, viewing the facts
as set forth in the Complaint, defendant is not entitled to
judgment

as

pleadings.

a

matter

of

law

based

on

the

substance

of

the

Plaintiff asserts these assessments were discharged

in bankruptcy; defendant asserts they were not.

The Court cannot

tell from the attachments to the Complaint.
Additionally,

Rooker-Feldman

does

not

bar

federal

court

jurisdiction over this FDCPA case because it does not apply.
Plaintiff’s Complaint does not ask the federal court to do anything
with respect to the state Final Judgment.

It does not seek to

have the state judgment set aside or vacated, or declared to be
wrong, or reopened for further consideration.

The Complaint in

the federal cases simply seeks damages for the FDCPA violations.
It is conceivable that plaintiff could get his FDCPA damages and
still be liable on the state judgment.

In addition, the state

case may or may not have been over when the federal lawsuit was
filed, since plaintiff has moved in the state case to vacate the

- 6 -

judgment. 2

See Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Fla., 713 F.3d

1066 (11th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Defendant’s Amended Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
(Doc. #20) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this

5th

day of

May, 2017.

Copies:
Counsel of Record

2

The Court takes judicial notice of Case No. 15-SC-005822,
the small claims case brought by The Greens against plaintiff to
recover for past assessments.

- 7 -