Walter Investment Management Corp. v. Walter Energy, Inc.
Filing
36
ORDER denying 17 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. See order for details. Signed by Judge Elizabeth A. Kovachevich on 9/9/2014. (SN)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
WALTER INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT CORP.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:14-cv-00796-T-EAK-TGW
WALTER ENERGY, INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) (Doc. 17) and
Plaintiffs second corrected response in opposition (Doc. 26). For the reasons set
forth below, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed its complaint on April 3, 2014. (Doc. 1.) Defendant filed its
answer on April 28, 2014 (Doc. 8) and an amended answer on May 21, 2014.
(Doc. 14). Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 5,
2014. (Doc. 17.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendants’ motion on
June 19, 2014. (Doc. 21.) Thereafter, Plaintiff twice amended and filed its second
corrected response in opposition to Defendant’s motion on July 15, 2014. (Doc.
26.)
1
Plaintiff’s complaint explains that Plaintiff operates as a mortgageservicing company, while Defendant is a corporation that now focuses its
business on mining and natural gas. Plaintiff alleges that it and Defendant are
each incarnations of two companies, Mid-State Homes, Inc. and Jim Walter
Homes, Inc., respectively, which were once “joined under one umbrella,”
operating as “sister subsidiaries of parent companies Jim Walter Corporation and
Jim Walter Industries, Inc.” (“Walter Industries”). On January 1, 1983, during the
time they operated as sister subsidiaries, Mid-State and Jim Walter Homes
entered into a contract, “Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Installment
Obligations and Servicing of Delinquent Accounts.” (Exhibit A.) Jim Walter
Homes, a home builder, would originate “installment obligations to its buyers”
and Mid-State would help Jim Walter Homes “servic[e] those obligations.” Jim
Walter Homes agreed to assist Mid-State with collections when accounts
became “delinquent” (overdue on at least two monthly payments), and to
repurchase any installments that remained delinquent for six months.
According to Plaintiff, in the years since the 1983 agreement was entered
into, Walter Investment Management, LLC, was “created to hold Mid-State’s
assets, was spun off from Walter Industries into its own, separate company” and
renamed Walter Investment Management Corp., the Plaintiff to this action.
During roughly this same time period, Jim Walter Homes “remained with Walter
Industries, which became Walter Energy and relocated to Alabama.” These
changes (the Walter Investment Management Corp. spin-off and Walter Energy’s
relocation and name change) were completed by 2010. (Doc. 1 p. 2, 7.)
2
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the 1983 agreement when it
failed to repurchase installment obligations (specifically, those termed the “Hector
Gonzalez claims”) from Plaintiff between 2009 until the present time. Plaintiff
alleges that by the terms of the contract, Defendant was required to repurchase
these accounts because they are “delinquent” and have been so for more than
six months.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
After the close of pleadings, any party may move for judgment on the
pleadings so long as doing so does not delay trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (c).
Judgment on the pleadings is proper “when there are no material facts in dispute,
and judgment may be rendered by considering the substance of the pleadings
and any judicially noticed facts.” Horsley v. Rivera, 292 F.3d 695, 700 (11th Cir.
2002). Thus, to render a judgment on the pleadings, the Court must find the
pleadings do not present any genuine issues of material fact. Scott v. Taylor, 405
F.3d 1251, 1253 (11th Cir. 2005).
“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is governed by the same
standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.” Guarino v. Wyeth LLC, 823
F.Supp.2d 1289, 1291 (M.D. Fla. 2011). The Court must make all inferences in
favor of the nonmoving party and ‘“accept the facts alleged in the complaint as
true.’” Id. (quoting Bankers Ins. Co. v. Fla. Residential Prop. & Cas. Joint
Underwriting Ass’n, 137 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 1998)). Dismissal is not
appropriate unless the complaint lacks sufficient factual matter to state a facially
plausible claim for relief that allows the Court to draw a reasonable inference that
3
the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. See Bell Atlantic v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).
On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court reviews only what is
presented in the pleadings—the answer and the complaint—and any judicially
noticed facts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a); Horsley, 292 F.3d at 700. However, the Court
may consider documents which are “central to plaintiffs claim” and whose
“authenticity is not challenged.” Speaker v. U.S. Dept, of Health and Human
Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371, 1379 (11th
Cir. 2010)(quoting SFM Holdings, Ltd. V. Banc of America Securities, LLC, 600
F.3d 1334,1337 (11th Cir. 2010)). The Court may not consider any matters other
than these; if “matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded
by the Court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(d). In that case, “all parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to
present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” Id.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s main contention in its motion for judgment on the pleadings is
that it has been improperly named as a party to this case. Defendant states Jim
Walter Homes and Mid-State Homes are parties to the 1983 agreement and that
Defendant never assumed the responsibilities or obligations of Jim Walter
Homes: Jim Walter Homes “has been a separate legal entity at all times since it
executed the 1983 Agreement and has not been a party to any merger or
consolidation with either Walter Energy, Inc. or any entity to which Walter
4
Energy, Inc. is the successor, directly or indirectly, by merger or consolidation.”
(Doc. 17).
These allegations, presented in Defendant’s motion for judgment on the
pleadings, are not alleged in Defendant’s answer. Thus, the Court cannot
consider them without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. At
this stage, summary judgment is improper. Among other things, the parties have
not been given “reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is
pertinent” to a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
Even if the Court could consider Defendant’s allegations in its motion for
judgment on the pleadings, the allegations themselves present genuine issues of
material fact which make both judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment
improper still. As Plaintiff points out in its response, the “very basis upon which”
Defendant seeks to have Plaintiff’s complaint dismissed presents genuine issues
of material fact. While Defendant alleges in its motion that it never assumed the
obligations of Jim Walter Homes, Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that Defendant
did assume those obligations as the successor to Jim Walter Homes. The parties
thus appear to disagree as to how the companies were restructured, and which
companies continue to be bound under the 1983 agreement. These
disagreements are genuine dispute of material fact, making both judgment on the
pleadings and summary judgment improper.
Setting aside the new allegations within Defendant’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings, the complaint and answer by themselves also present genuine
issues of material fact that make judgment on the pleadings improper still. In its
5
answer, Defendant responds to the majority of Plaintiff’s allegations by
specifically denying or denying by stating Defendant lacks knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Plaintiffs allegations. In its
answer, Defendant denies Plaintiffs allegation that “the 1983 Agreement is a
valid and binding contract” between the parties. This is a denial of one of the
most basic and essential allegations in Plaintiffs complaint, and is a prime
example of one of the genuine issues of material fact present which make
judgment on the pleadings improper at this stage.
CONCLUSION
The pleadings present genuine issues of material fact which make
judgment on the pleadings improper. Accordingly, it is,
ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is
DENIED.
Done and ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Florida, on this
day of September 2014.
ELIZABETHA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT j O D S E ^ ^
Copies to: All parties and counsel of record.
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?