Levy v. American Medical Collections Bureau, Inc. et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge James C. Cacheris on 9/29/2016. (dvanm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
TODD A. LEVY,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLECTIONS
BUREAU, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

M E M O R A N D U M

1:16cv981 (JCC/JFA)

O P I N I O N

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to
Dismiss [Dkt. 4] filed by Defendants American Medical
Collections Bureau, Inc. and Inova Health System Foundation.
For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Motion and
permit Plaintiff seven days to file an Amended Complaint against
Inova Health Care Services.
I. Background
Plaintiff is a resident of Prince William County,
Virginia.

On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff received a debt

collection letter from an entity identifying itself as American
Medical Collection Bureau, Inc., or AMCB.

The letter advised

Plaintiff of his right to contest the debt within 30 days, and
requested that Plaintiff “remit payment in fully [sic] today” to
“avoid further action.”

Plaintiff contested the amount of the debt, and the
balance was adjusted accordingly.

Plaintiff then received a

second letter dated August 31, 2015, reflecting the new balance
and stating that the amount due “must be remitted promptly to
our office or our client will find it necessary to take further
action.”

On October 1, 2015, Plaintiff received a third letter

demanding payment of the outstanding debt.

In a fourth and

“final” notice sent November 2, 2015, AMCB advised Plaintiff
that “any further delay in paying” the amount owed “may result
in our collection agency referring this account to an attorney.”
On July 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit against AMCB
and Inova Health Systems Foundation, alleging that the letters
described above violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on
August 31, 2016, contending that Plaintiff failed to name the
proper party.

Defendants allege that AMCB is a trade name

employed by Inova Health Care Services, not a freestanding
corporate entity.

Moreover, Inova Health System Foundation is a

charitable foundation maintained by Inova Health Care Services
that is not engaged in debt collection.

Accordingly, Defendants

argue that Plaintiff’s claims against these two entities should
be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability to bring

2

suit against Inova Health Care Services — presumably the
intended Defendant.
II. Legal Standard
Defendant brings this Motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for

failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court
generally may not look beyond the four corners of the complaint.
See Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 791 F.3d 500,
508 (4th Cir. 2015).

As such, it is not clear that the Court

may reach the arguments advanced by Defendant under Rule
12(b)(6), as they rely on extrinsic evidence.
The Court therefore finds it appropriate to consider
Defendant’s Motion under Rule 12(b)(1).

Defendant’s arguments

are directed to “jurisdictional facts” of the kind properly
considered under that Rule.

See 24th Senatorial Dist.

Republican Comm. v. Alcorn, 820 F.3d 624, 629 (4th Cir. 2016).
Moreover, “[a] federal court has an independent obligation to
assess its subject-matter jurisdiction,” and must reach the
issue sua sponte if necessary.

Constantine v. Rectors &

Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 479-80 (4th Cir.
2005).

The Court finds it necessary to do so here.

As such,

the Court may look beyond the Complaint to evaluate the
jurisdictional facts brought to light in Defendants’ Motion and

3

conceded by Plaintiff.

See 24th Senatorial Dist. Republican

Comm., 820 F.3d at 629.
III. Analysis
Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint must be
dismissed because it names the wrong parties.
Plaintiff does not dispute that he made such a
mistake.

Rather, he admits that he intended to sue Inova Health

Care Services, not its charitable foundation, and requests leave
to file an amended complaint making that substitution.
He argues, however, that the Court should deny
Defendant’s Motion as to his claims against AMCB, contending
that AMCB “can be sued in its own name.”

Opp. [Dkt. 7] at 3.

It is unclear what, if any, legal authority Plaintiff relies
upon for that proposition.
Regardless, as Defendants point out, a trade name like
AMCB does not have independent legal status such that it may sue
or be sued apart from the corporation employing it.

See, e.g.,

Jones v. Imaginary Images, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-217, 2012 WL
3257888, at *7 (E.D. Va. Aug. 8, 2012).

The Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction to entertain a suit against an entity that
has no recognized legal standing.

Cf. Cetacean Cmty. v. Bush,

386 F.3d 1169, 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that federal courts
lack subject matter jurisdiction over lawsuits brought in the
names of animals).

If nothing else, a favorable ruling against
4

AMCB would not be capable of redressing any injury Plaintiff may
have suffered, as AMCB has no assets of its own. See Lujan v.
Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992) (discussing the
“redessability” requirement of standing).
The parties’ briefs range over a number of additional
topics, including whether the use of “American Medical
Collections Bureau, Inc.” violates Virginia law regarding trade
names because Inova Health Care Services has registered only
“American Medical Collections Bureau,” sans “inc.,” with the
Commonwealth.

These arguments are beyond the scope of the

narrow issue now before the Court.

Their merits may be resolved

once Plaintiff has named the proper Defendant.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion will be
granted and Plaintiff’s claim will be dismissed without
prejudice.

Plaintiff will be required to file an amended

complaint naming Inova Health Care Services within seven days if
he intends to proceed with this suit.

Inova Health Care

Services shall have fourteen days thereafter in which to file a
responsive pleading.
An appropriate order shall issue.

September 29, 2016
Alexandria, Virginia

/s/
James C. Cacheris
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

5