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
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?