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 -
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?