Rajapakse v. Credit Acceptance Corporation et al

Filing 33

ORDER OVERRULING 22 Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, ADOPTING 21 Report and Recommendation's Recommended Disposition, and DENYING 19 Plaintiff's Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (AChu)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SAMANTHA RAJAPAKSE,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-cv-12970

v.
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP.,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS (ECF #22) TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF
#21), (2) ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION’S
RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION, AND (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING
ORDER (ECF #19)
In this action, pro se Plaintiff Samantha Rajapakse claims that Defendant
Credit Acceptance Corporation (“CAC”) and numerous individual Defendants
committed fraud and violated several federal statutes, including the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, when Defendants attempted to collect an alleged debt
related to her purchase of a vehicle. (See Complaint, ECF #1.) On February 4, 2018,
Rajapakse filed an ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order in which she
asked the Court to, among other things, order that the vehicle – which had been
repossessed – be returned to her. (See ECF #19.) Rajapakse did not serve this motion
on any of the Defendants.

1

On February 6, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court deny Rajapakse’s
motion (the “R&R”). (See ECF #21.)

The Magistrate Judge concluded that

Rajapakse had failed (1) to provide notice of her motion to the Defendants and (2)
to establish that she was entitled to “the drastic remedy of [] a temporary restraining
order without notice.” (Id. at Pg. ID 160.) Rajapakse filed timely objections to the
R&R on February 7, 2018 (the “Objections”). (See ECF #22.)
The procedural posture of this case has changed significantly in the two weeks
since Rajapakse filed the Objections. First, on February 8, 2018, Rajapakse filed
new motions seeking the return of her vehicle. (See ECF ## 25-27.) Second, counsel
for CAC has appeared in this action. Third, on February 13, 2018, the Magistrate
Judge held a telephonic status conference with Rajapakse and counsel for CAC. (See
Dkt.) During that call, CAC’s counsel “indicated that [Rajapakse’s] vehicle will be
held and will not be sold before [her] motions for injunctive relief are resolved.”
(Id.) Finally, the Magistrate Judge entered a briefing schedule with respect to
Rajapakse’s motions. (See ECF #29.) CAC filed a response brief on February 21,
2018 (see ECF #32), and a telephonic hearing on Rajapakse’s motions is scheduled
for February 23, 2018.
The Magistrate Judge has established a fair and an appropriate process for
hearing and resolving Rajapakse’s motions. Given this new framework for resolving

2

Rajapakse’s motions, the Court concludes that it would not be appropriate to grant
Rajapakse the extraordinary relief of a temporary restraining order based on the
previous ex parte proceedings. Instead, the relief Rajapakse seeks should be granted,
if at all, only after consideration of the full record currently before the Magistrate
Judge.
Accordingly, (1) the Objections (ECF #22) are OVERRULED, (2), the
recommended disposition of the R&R (ECF #21) is ADOPTED, and (3)
Rajapakse’s ex parte motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF #19) is
DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to any of the current motions pending
before the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2018

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on February 22, 2018, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Amanda Chubb for Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
[phone]

3