Brookside MHP, LLC v. Michalak, Nicole

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing 1 Complaint/ Notice of Removal. Amended Complaint due 12/17/2024. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 11/26/24. (jat),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

BROOKSIDE MHP, LLC, and JOSHUA BARRON,
Plaintiffs,
v.

OPINION and ORDER
24-cv-416-jdp

NICOLE MICHALAK,
Defendant.

Nicole Michalak, proceeding without counsel, alleges that defendant Brookside MHP,
LLC, and its manager Joshua Barron committed misconduct in litigating a state-court eviction
action against her. See Brookside MHP v. Michalak, Washington County Case No. 2024SC142.1
The court has already granted her leave to proceed without prepayment of any portion of the
filing fee. Dkt. 3.
It is unclear whether Michalak means to file this case as a brand-new civil action or as
an attempt to remove the state-court case to this court. If she is trying to remove the case, she
would be unable to do so. Brookside’s eviction claim cannot be litigated in this federal court
because it is a state-law cause of action and because Michalak states that the parties are all
Wisconsin citizens. So I will treat Michalak’s filing as a complaint instead of as a notice of
removal, and I will direct the clerk of court to switch the parties in the caption: Michalak will
be the plaintiff and Brookside and Barron will be the defendants.
The next step is for me to screen the complaint and dismiss any portion that is legally
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks for money

1

Available at https://wcca.wicourts.gov.

damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money damages. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915. In doing so, I must accept Michalak’s allegations as true and construe the complaint
generously, holding it to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011).
But even applying these standards, Michalak’s current allegations do not support a
claim that this court can hear. Her allegations are somewhat difficult to follow, but I take her
to be saying that defendant Brookside, her landlord, sent her a “fake court summons,”
conspired with the judge in the eviction case in failing to file a valid judgment in that case, and
coerced her into signing a settlement agreement for $70,000. Michalak wants the eviction
judgment to be vacated and she wants to enforce a contract that she had entered into with
Brookside; I take this to be a different contract than the one that she says she was coerced into
signing.
As a starting point, I cannot vacate the judgment issued by the state court. See Gilbank
v. Wood Cnty. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 111 F.4th 754, 772 (7th Cir. 2024). But it appears that the
state court already granted that relief after Michalak filed her complaint; the electronic statecourt docket shows that the judgment has been vacated.
I can still consider Michalak’s claims for money damages or relief under contract law.
Michalak contends that Brookside’s actions violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). But courts have previously concluded that landlords are not “debt collectors” under
the FDCPA when they seek to collect past-due rent owed to them. See, e.g., Carter v. Am. Mgmt.
Consultants, LLC/Riverstone Apartments, No. 09 C 7181, 2010 WL 3527600, at *2 (N.D. Ill.
Sept. 2, 2010), aff'd sub nom. Carter v. AMC, LLC, 645 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2011).

2

Without a federal claim, this court cannot consider any state-law contract claims that
Michalak seeks to bring unless she were to show that the requirements for the court’s diversity
jurisdiction are met: that she and defendants are citizens of different states and that more than
$75,000 is in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Michalak doesn’t meet either of these
requirements; she states that both she and Brookside are Wisconsin citizens, and she asks for
at most $70,000 in damages.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has cautioned against dismissing an
unrepresented plaintiff’s case without giving them a chance to amend the complaint. Felton v.
City of Chicago, 827 F.3d 632, 636 (7th Cir. 2016). I will give Michalak a chance to file an
amended complaint better explaining how defendants harmed her and explaining whether the
state court vacating the eviction judgment affects any of her claims.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s complaint, Dkt. 1, is DISMISSED.
2. Plaintiff may have until December 17, 2024, to submit an amended complaint.
3. The clerk of court is directed to recaption the case as directed above.
Entered November 26, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3