Mraz v. I.C. Systems, Inc.
Filing
59
ORDERED: Plaintiff Victor Mraz's Motion for an Award of Costs and Attorneys' Fees (Doc. 41) is DENIED without prejudice. United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 53) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 7/30/2020. (AEH)
Case 2:18-cv-00254-SPC-NPM Document 59 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1032
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
VICTOR MRAZ,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No.: 2:18-cv-254-FtM-38NPM
I.C. SYSTEMS, INC.,
Defendant.
/
OPINION AND ORDER1
Before the Court is United States Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell’s Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 53). Judge Mizell recommends granting in part and denying in
part Plaintiff Victor Mraz’s Motion for an Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees. Both parties
object to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for more responses has expired.
Plaintiff Victor Mraz sued I.C. Systems, Inc. for violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”). Both parties moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff won. (Doc.
33). Defendant then served an Offer of Judgment, which Plaintiff accepted, and the Court
entered. (Doc. 38; Doc. 39). Plaintiff then moved for costs and attorneys’ fees, which led
to the Report and Recommendation. The Court, however, need not address the Report
and Recommendation because its subject matter jurisdiction is now at issue.
Two weeks ago, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing
because of the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Trichell v. Midland Credit Mgmt. Inc., No.
1
Disclaimer: Documents hyperlinked to CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By using hyperlinks, the
Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products
they provide, nor does it have any agreements with them. The Court is also not responsible for a hyperlink’s
availability and functionality, and a failed hyperlink does not affect this Order.
Case 2:18-cv-00254-SPC-NPM Document 59 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1033
18-14144, 2020 WL 3634917 (11th Cir. July 6, 2020). There, the Eleventh Circuit held
the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact to pursue an FDCPA claim “when they received
allegedly misleading communications that did not mislead them.” Id. at *9. In so holding,
the court found (1) violating the FDCPA alone was not a concrete injury under the history
and judgment of Congress; (2) the plaintiffs’ complaints never alleged they were at
substantial risk of being misled by the collection letters; and (3) any risk to the plaintiffs
dissipated before they filed their complaints.
Because of Trichell, Defendant moves the Court to vacate it summary judgment
order and dismiss this case for lack of standing. (Doc. 57). It argues that all risk of harm
dissipated before Plaintiff sued because its collection efforts stopped once he disputed
the debt. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing the offer of judgment and record prevent dismissal.
The parties’ latest litigation changes the case’s posture. If Plaintiff lacks standing,
then the Court must dismiss the case. And dismissal will mean Plaintiff is not a prevailing
party entitled to fees and costs. If Plaintiff has standing, then he may wish to recover any
fees expended to defend Defendant’s jurisdictional attack. The Court thus denies without
prejudice the motion for costs and attorneys’ fees and moots the Report and
Recommendation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff Victor Mraz’s Motion for an Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Doc.
41) is DENIED without prejudice.
(2) United
States
Magistrate
Judge
Nicholas
Recommendation (Doc. 53) is DENIED as moot.
2
P.
Mizell’s
Report
and
Case 2:18-cv-00254-SPC-NPM Document 59 Filed 07/30/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1034
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 30th day of July 2020.
Copies: All Parties of Record
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?