Ramirez v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 14 Motion to Dismiss; granting 19 Motion to Dismiss (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/25/2018. (DLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 18-1285 (DSD/DTS)
Melissa Ramirez,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
and Rodenburg LLP,
Defendants.
Anthony P. Chester, Esq. and Hyde & Swigart, 120 South 6th
Street, Suite 2050, Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel for
plaintiff.
Margaret Ann Santos, Esq. and Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, 333
South 7th Street, Suite 2000, Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel
for defendant Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC.
Clifton G. Rodenburg, Esq. and Rodenburg Law Firm, P.O. Box
2427, Fargo, ND 58108 for defendant Rodenburg, LLP.
This matter is before the court upon the motions to dismiss
by

defendants

Rodenburg LLP.

Portfolio

Recovery

Associates,

LLC

(PRA)

and

Based on a review of the file, record, and

proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the motions are
granted.

BACKGROUND
This dispute arises out of defendants’ failure to pay a filing
bond when they commenced a debt-collection action against plaintiff
Melissa Ramirez in Minnesota state court.

In

November

2017,

PRA

acquired

a

$503.99

allegedly owed to Community Bank-Herbergers.

debt

Ramirez

Id. ¶ 25.

PRA

subsequently hired Rodenburg to collect the debt from Ramirez. Id.
¶ 27.
In December 2017, defendants initiated a Minnesota state court
action against Ramirez, seeking to recover the debt.

Id. ¶ 28.

Defendants did not post a cost bond with the Minnesota court
administrator prior to serving Ramirez with a summons and complaint
in the debt action as required by Minn. Stat. §§ 549.18, 549.19.
Id. ¶ 29.
On

May

8,

2018,

Ramirez

commenced

this

action

against

defendants, alleging that their failure to post a bond in the state
court

action

violated

several

provisions

of

the

Fair

Debt

Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e,
1692e(10), 1692e(2)(A), 1692e(6), and 1692f.

Id. ¶¶ 50-56.

Defendants now move to dismiss Ramirez’s complaint, arguing
that Ramirez lacks standing and has failed to state a plausible
claim on which relief can be granted.

Defendants also assert that

the Minnesota bond statues are unconstitutional.

DISCUSSION
On September 21, 2018, Judge Paul A. Magnuson of this district
granted PRA’s and Rodenburg’s motions to dismiss FDCPA claims in
two materially identical cases.

See Blake v. Portfolio Recovery
2

Associates, LLC, and Rodenburg LLP, 18-cv-1028 (D. Minn. Sept. 21,
2018); Bell v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, and Rodenburg
LLP, 18-cv-1027 (D. Minn. Sept. 21, 2018).1
persuaded

by

Judge

Magnuson’s

reasoning

The court is fully
in

those

cases

and

similarly concludes that defendants have not violated the FDCPA by
their conduct in the state court action.2

As a result, the court

adopts the reasoning and conclusions in Blake

and Bell, and

dismisses Ramirez’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which
relief can be granted.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based on the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

Defendants’ motions to dismiss [ECF Nos. 14, 19] are

granted; and
2.

The case is dismissed with prejudice.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: September 25, 2018
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

1

Counsel in this case were all also involved in those cases
and made the same arguments as presented here.
2

The court is also persuaded by Judge Magnuson’s reasoning
as to defendants’ standing and constitutional challenges.
3