Bloodworth v. United Credit Service Inc

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 2/16/16 that United Credit Service Inc.s motion for judgment on the pleadings 17 and plaintiffs motion to deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings 21 are DENIED as MOOT. Further ordering that plaintiffs expedited motion to withdraw its motion to certify class 49 is GRANTED. The Clerk shall withdraw plaintiffs amended motion to certify class 36 . Further ordering that plaintiffs expedited motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 49 is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file plaintiffs second amended complaint and the accompanying exhibits. Further ordering the clerk to update the docket to reflect that the proper name of defendant Law Office of Peter B. King is Peter B. King, Attorney at Law,S.C. (cc: all counsel) (dm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
_____________________________________________________________________
STEPHEN BLOODWORTH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 15-cv-0502

UNITED CREDIT SERVICE, INC. et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff Stephen Bloodworth filed the original complaint in this action against
defendant United Credit Service, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Wisconsin Consumer Act (“WCA”). On August 19, 2015,
United Credit filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, and plaintiff responded by filing
a motion to deny United Credit’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. On October 1,
2015, plaintiff amended his complaint, adding new defendants Watertown Regional
Medical Center, Inc. and the Law Offices of Peter B. King.1 Rather than resting on its
original motion for judgment on the pleadings, United Credit filed a renewed motion to
dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). That motion is now fully briefed. In the meantime,
plaintiff has indicated that he has resolved the matter with Watertown Regional Medical
Center and has filed an expedited motion to file a second amended complaint which
removes Watertown Regional Medical Center as a party and modifies allegations against
King. Neither United Credit nor King oppose plaintiff’s motion to amend, therefore I will

1

Plaintiff misidentifies defendant King in his complaint. The proper name of this
defendant is Peter B. King, Attorney at Law, S.C. I will order the clerk to update the
docket accordingly.

grant it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2); Life Plans, Inc. v. Security Life of Denver Ins. Co.,
800 F.3d 242, 347 (7th Cir. 2015) (stating that courts should freely give leave to amend).
Further, plaintiff and United Credit both agree that I should treat United Credit’s pending
motion to dismiss as applicable to the second amended complaint. I will do so.
In their expedited motion, plaintiff also asks me to withdraw the pending motion for
class certification without prejudice in light of the fact that the Seventh Circuit recently
overruled its holding in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2011) that
an individual settlement can moot a potential class representative’s claims prior to class
certification. See Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). Given
that no one objects, I will grant this request as well.
Finally, I will also deny as moot United Credit’s original motion for judgment on the
pleadings and plaintiff’s motion to deny the motion for judgment on the pleadings because
plaintiff’s amended complaint and United Credit’s renewed motion to dismiss have mooted
these original motions.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that United Credit Service Inc.’s motion for
judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 17) and plaintiff’s motion to deny the motion for
judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 21) are DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s expedited motion to withdraw its motion
to certify class (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall withdraw plaintiff’s amended
motion to certify class (ECF No. 36).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s expedited motion for leave to file a
second amended complaint (ECF No. 49) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file plaintiff’s

2

second amended complaint and the accompanying exhibits.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk shall update the docket to reflect that the
proper name of defendant “Law Office of Peter B. King” is “Peter B. King, Attorney at Law,
S.C.”
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 16th day of February, 2016.
s/ Lynn Adelman
__________________________
LYNN ADELMAN
District Judge

3