Mohlman v. Re/Max Realtors et al
ORDER granting 2 Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by Brent Mohlman and DISMISSING CASE. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (MLan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 17-11143
SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
ARTHUR J. TARNOW
RE/MAX REALTORS, ET AL.,
R. STEVEN WHALEN
ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ;
Plaintiff Brent Mohlman filed a pro se Complaint  and an Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis  on April 11, 2017. The Court may authorize the
commencement of a suit “without prepayment of fees or security therefore, by a
person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets . . .
[indicating] that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th
Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds by LaFountain v. Harry, 716 F.3d 944,
951 (6th Cir. 2013)). Plaintiff has submitted an affidavit showing sufficient indicia
of poverty. The Court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In
Forma Pauperis .
Page 1 of 5
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) “requires courts to dismiss in forma pauperis
complaints that fail to state a claim [upon which relief may be granted], and applies
to complaints filed by non-prisoners as well as prisoners.” Baker v. Wayne Cnty.
Family Independence Agency, 75 F. App’x 501, 502-03 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing
Benson v. O’Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir. 1999); McGore, 114 F.3d at
608-09). To survive § 1915(e)(2) screening, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)). The complaint must include enough factual detail
to present more than “conclusory and unadorned assertions” or “legal conclusions
couched as factual allegations.”
See Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v.
Napolitano, 648 F.3d 365, 369, 379 (6th Cir. 2011). “If the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3).
Plaintiff has been involved in litigation in this District for quite some time.
See, e.g., Mohlman v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 15-13489; Mohlman v.
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 15-11085; Mohlman v. Long Beach Mortg.,
No. 12-10120. It appears that most of the claims in those cases revolve around a
mortgage on property located at 19042 Irving Street in Livonia, Michigan. All of
these cases were dismissed with prejudice.
Page 2 of 5
In this case, Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (“FDCPA”) and a claim of abuse of legal process. According to Plaintiff,
Defendant Mary Grace Liparoto violated the FDCPA “by making several annoying
telephone calls” to him regarding the Irving Street property. Liparoto called
Plaintiff on January 24, 2017 and informed him that he was trespassing on that
property. Liparoto also threatened to have towed a trailer that was parked in the
driveway and she and her agents1 caused over $2,200 worth of damages to
Plaintiff’s personal property located at 19042 Irving Street.
Plaintiff states that Liparoto filed a false report with the Livonia Police
Department on April 9, 2017. Plaintiff and his son had removed a newly purchased
washing machine and dryer from the Irving Street house and placed them in
Plaintiff’s vehicle. Liparoto wrongfully accused Plaintiff and his son of stealing the
washer and dryer. Plaintiff believes Liparoto acted “with the ulterior motive” to
have him arrested and removed from the Irving Street property “so she could get a
commission for sale of said property.” Liparoto and Defendant Re/Max Realtors
misused the Livonia Police Department’s legal process and their actions
traumatized Plaintiff’s two young grandchildren.
Plaintiff appears to accuse Defendant Liparoto of violating the FDCPA, 15
U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., “by making several annoying telephone calls to plaintiff
Plaintiff does not identify Liparoto’s agents.
Page 3 of 5
regarding” the Irving Street Property. This is Plaintiff’s only claim under federal
law. This allegation does not state a FDCPA claim. The FDCPA applies only to
debt collectors, which are defined as:
[A]ny person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the
mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any
debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly,
debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another. Notwithstanding
the exclusion provided by clause (F) of the last sentence of this paragraph,
the term includes any creditor who, in the process of collecting his own
debts, uses any name other than his own which would indicate that a third
person is collecting or attempting to collect such debts.
15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (emphasis added). Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant
Liparoto is a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA, and therefore, he
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court will dismiss the
FDCPA claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claim leaves the Court without subjectmatter jurisdiction.
Even if the Court has authority to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claim, the Court declines to do so. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3) (authorizing a district court to decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction if it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction).
Plaintiff has not set forth any other basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over his
state-law abuse of process claim.
Because the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, it will dismiss this case. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Accordingly,
Page 4 of 5
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis  is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claim under the FDCPA is
DISMISSED for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED for lack of
Dated: April 28, 2017
s/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Page 5 of 5
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?