Muller v. Midland Funding, LLC et al
Filing
20
ORDER denying 15 motion for judgment on the pleadings. Signed on 05/26/2016 by District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Powers, Jo)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
WAYNE P. MULLER,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
v.
MIDLAND FUNDING, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 15-0882-CV-W-FJG
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants Midland Funding, LLC and Midland
Credit Management, Inc.’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 15). The
Motion is considered below.
I.
Background
Plaintiff filed this action in state court, and it was removed to federal court on
November 10, 2015. Plaintiff brings an action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (“FDCPA”), regarding defendants’ debt collection
practices. Plaintiff alleges that defendants purchased a debt incurred by plaintiff, and on
January 15, 2015, sent plaintiff a collection letter.
The January 15, 2015 letter
conveyed a balance owed on the debt of $4,969.94. On May 20, 2015, defendant sent
a second collection letter, which conveyed a balance owed of $4,968.64.
Plaintiff
alleges that the balance owed on the second letter cannot be correct, as he did not
make any payments between January 2015 and May 2015. Therefore, plaintiff alleges
that “Either the credit information communicated by MCM to Plaintiff in January, 2015 . .
. was false, or the credit information communicated by MCM to Plaintiff in May, 2015 . . .
was false; both amounts cannot be correct.” See Complaint, Doc. No. 1-1, ¶¶ 9-22.
Plaintiff further alleges that on August 11, 2015, defendants sent a collection letter
which conveyed that the balance on the debt was $4,967.34. Complaint, ¶¶ 25, 28.
Again, plaintiff states that he made no payments on the debt in the interim, so either the
August amount was incorrect, or the May amount was incorrect. See Complaint, ¶ 30.
Plaintiff alleges that it is a violation of the FDCPA for a debt collector to make a false
representation as to the character, amount, or legal status of a debt, and to
communicate to a person credit information which is known or which should be known
to be false. See Complaint, ¶ 23, citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (Doc. No. 15). In their
suggestions in support (Doc. No. 16), defendants indicate that plaintiff has alleged the
defendants violated the FDCPA by sending collection letters understating the amount of
his debt by a fraction of one percent, and such claims fail as a matter of law because
such a minor discrepancy does not meet the materiality requirement of a 15 U.S.C. §
1692e claim. In response, plaintiff argues that the Court cannot determine materiality
based on the pleadings, as the actual amount of plaintiff’s debt is not known or pled.
II.
Standard
A party may file a Motion for the judgment on the pleadings “after the pleadings
are closed--but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). In determining
whether to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings the Court uses the same
standard as for the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See, e.g., Ashley Cnty, Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552
F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the
complaint must do more than recite the bare elements of a cause of action. Ashcroft v.
2
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 687 (2009). Rather, it must include “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
Under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court “accept[s] as
true all factual allegations set out in the complaint” and “construe[s] the complaint in the
light most favorable to the plaintiff[s] drawing all inferences in [their] favor.” Pfizer, Inc.,
552 F.3d at 665 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Judgment on the
pleadings is appropriate only when there is no dispute as to any material facts and the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id.
The principle provision of the FDCPA at issue in this case deals with
misrepresentations and reads:
A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or
misleading representations or means in connection with the
collection of any debt. Without limiting the general
application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a
violation of this section . . . [t]he false representation of – [ ]
the character, amount, or legal status of any debt. . . .”
15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A).
III.
Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 15)
Defendants argue that the misstatement of the amount of plaintiff’s debt is not
material. Although the Eighth Circuit has not addressed whether misstatements under
Section 1692e must be material, defendants note that all Circuit Courts that have
addressed the issue of materiality have found that a false statement is not actionable
under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e unless that statement is material. See DiMatteo v. Sweeney,
Gallo, Reich & Bolz, L.L.P., 619 F. App’x 7, 11 n.3 (2d Cir. 2015); Jensen v. Pressler &
Pressler, 791 F.3d 413, 418, 421 (3d Cir. 2015); Powell v. Palisades Acquisition XVI,
LLC, 782 F.3d 119, 126-27 (4th Cir. 2014); Miller v. Javitch, Block & Rathbone, 561
3
F.3d 588, 596 (6th Cir. 2009); Hahn v. Triumph Partnerships LLC, 557 F.3d 755, 757-58
(7th Cir. 2009); Donohue v. Quick Collect, Inc., 592 F.3d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2010);
Maynard v. Cannon, 401 F. App’x 389, 397 (10th Cir. 2010). Defendants note that
under this case law, statements are material only if they are “important in the sense that
they could objectively affect the least sophisticated consumer’s decisionmaking.”
Powell, 782 F.3d at 126.
Defendants further note that in a case from the Eastern District of Missouri, the
Court found that understatement of an account balance by 28% was not material under
Section 1692e because the collection letter seeking a lesser amount than what was
owed did not result in any harm to plaintiff. Haney v. Portfolio Recovery Associates,
L.L.C., No. 4:14CV0720 TIA, 2015 WL 1457216, at *6 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 30, 2015)
(granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings). Defendants argue that
here, where defendants’ subsequent collection letter sought a balance due of a couple
of dollars less than the original letter, could not have resulted in any harm to plaintiff,
and therefore defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff responds that defendants’ argument rests on the principle that the first
collection letter sent to plaintiff, providing the highest balance due, was the accurate
amount due on the account, and the second and third letters understated the amount
due by a small fraction. However, plaintiff argues that his complaint should be read
differently – that the decreasing balance over time means that at least two of the three
collection letters were incorrect, and that possibly all three collection letters contained
an incorrect amount. Plaintiff states that, at this stage of the litigation, the exact balance
of the account has not been determined, and it would be premature to dismiss this case
4
while discovery is ongoing. Plaintiff distinguishes Haney by noting that the District Court
in Haney was able to determine the actual balance of the debt owed; here, the true
amount of the debt owed is not apparent from the pleadings. Additionally, Haney is the
only case cited by defendants finding that the amount of debt represented in a collection
letter was not material – the remaining cases found other representations to be
immaterial (such as the amount of debt attributable to interest rather than principal, see,
e.g., Hahn, 557 F.3d at 756-57).
Furthermore, nearly all of the cases cited by
defendants regarding materiality reach that issue on summary judgment – after a full
record has been developed. Finally, plaintiff argues that defendants entered into a
consent order with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) on September
9, 2015, in which the CFPB specifically found that purchase agreements that
defendants entered into with debt sellers contained limited information regarding the
accuracy and validity of the debts purchased. See Encore Capital Group, Inc. et al.,
2015-CFPB-0022, at 7 (2015) (noting, for instance, that “a purchase agreement
between Midland Funding and one large credit card issuer informed [Midland] that the
account balance for over 35,000 individual accounts being sold in that transaction was
an approximation”). Plaintiff, therefore, argues that it is unlikely that defendants’ records
can be relied upon.
In reply, defendants continue to argue that plaintiff has not alleged a material
misrepresentation. Defendants argue that plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the letters
listed in the complaint provide three balances: $4,969.94 (Doc. 1-1 ¶ 13), $4,968.64 (Id.
¶ 17), and $4,967.34 (Id. ¶ 25). Defendants argue that plaintiff has alleged that either
the first amount or the second amount was incorrect—not that both were incorrect. Id. ¶
5
22. Similarly, defendants note that plaintiff then alleged that either the second amount or
the third amount was incorrect—again, not that both were incorrect. Id. ¶ 30.
Defendants then argue that plaintiff is “bound” by the allegations in his complaint, so at
least one of the letters contained an accurate balance, and at most the debt was
overstated or understated by $2.60.
Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments, the Court finds it to be premature
to dismiss the complaint.
Construing the complaint in the light most favorable to
plaintiff, and drawing all inferences in his favor, the Court finds that the complaint
supports a reasonable inference that all three amounts listed in the letters could be
inaccurate. The Court has no idea what the accurate amount of plaintiff’s debt is, and
therefore cannot determine from the face of the complaint whether the amounts listed in
the letters amount to material misrepresentations or not.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion is DENIED.
IV.
Conclusion
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings (Doc. No. 15) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 26, 2016
Kansas City, Missouri
S/ FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?