Laccinole v. Assad

Filing 18

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 8/19/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JUDY B. ASSAD,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________)
CHRISTOPHER LACCINOLE,

C.A. No. 14-508 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff

Christopher

Laccinole

has

brought

three

suits

relating to attempts to collect a debt – moneys he allegedly owes
to the Village Lower School, Inc.

The Court consolidated these

actions for more efficient case management, and issued a detailed
Memorandum and Order (“Memorandum and Order”) granting Defendants’
Motions for Judgments on the Pleadings in C.A. No. 14-404.
No. 40 in C.A. No. 14-404.)

(ECF

Currently before the Court is

Defendant Judy B. Assad’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in C.A. No. 14-508.

(ECF No. 4.)

As detailed below, and for the same reasons cited in the Memorandum
and Order, Assad’s Motion is GRANTED.
Laccinole raises identical claims to those asserted in C.A.
No. 14-404 and the Court need not recount them here.

The only

material differences between the two actions are three additional

allegations Laccinole makes in this matter:

(1) that Assad acted

unlawfully by handing him a copy of the accounting for his debt at
a state court hearing (Compl. ¶¶ 46-48, ECF No. 1-1); (2) that
Assad amended her state court complaint, dropping one of her
initial counts and certain damages claims, conduct that, according
to Laccinole, demonstrates that Assad initially brought legally
impressible claims (id. ¶¶ 80-89); and (3) that Assad filed an
unwarranted objection to Laccinole’s Motion for a More Definite
Statement in the state court action (id. ¶¶ 69-77).

None of these

allegations change the analysis outlined in the Memorandum and
Order, nor do they change the result.

Laccinole has failed to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The

Court

has

already

considered

whether

the

accounting

attached to the state court complaint - or absence thereof violated any of the statutes Laccinole cited in this action.

(See

Memorandum and Order 15-16, ECF No. 40 in C.A. No. 14-404.)

That

Assad handed Laccinole the accounting at a state court hearing
does not change this analysis.

Nor does the fact that Assad

amended her state court complaint render it misleading under the
FDCPA or violate the other state statutes on which Laccinole
relies.
(8)(e)(2)

Rhode Island Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure
“allow[s]

for

the

assertion

hypothetical claims and defenses,”

of

alternative

and

DiLuglio v. Providence Auto

Body, Inc., 755 A.2d 757, 777 (R.I 2000), which is what Assad
2

appears to have done in her initial complaint.
in

the

Memorandum

and

Order,

Assad

did

And, as detailed
not

seek

legally

impermissible damages or fees.

(See Memorandum and Order 17, ECF

No. 40 in C.A. No. 14-404.)

Finally, that Assad objected to

Laccinole’s Motion for a More Definite Statement in the state court
action (see Ex. F to Compl., ECF No. 1-1 at 57) does not amount to
false, deceptive or misleading conduct sufficient to support a
claim under any of Laccinole’s various counts.

As explained in

the Memorandum and Order, “[t]o do so . . . the filing must
misrepresent the status or the character of the debt, or constitute
some other unfair or unconscionable litigation tactic such as
submitting false or baseless statements to the court.”

(See

Memorandum and Order 17, ECF No. 40 in C.A. No. 14-404 (citations
omitted).)

Assad’s motion was not misleading, false or baseless.

Consequently, for the same reasons detailed in the Memorandum
and Order filed in C.A. No. 14-404, the Court GRANTS Assad’s Motion
and DISMISSES Laccinole’s Complaint WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: August 19, 2016

3