Sexton v. Evergreen Village MHC et al, No. 2:2019cv00675 - Document 52 (D. Utah 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Order adopting and approving 33 Report and Recommendations re 15 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against Evergreen (ECF No. 17 ), Judge Bennett's Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff's motion against Evergreen (ECF No. 35 ), and Plaintiff's Objections to Judge Bennett's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 38 ) are moot and are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 11/24/2020. (lnp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Sexton v. Evergreen Village MHC et al Doc. 52 Case 2:19-cv-00675-CW-JCB Document 52 Filed 11/24/20 PageID.432 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH DAVID SEXTON, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, v. MERCHANTS & MEDICAL CREDIT CORPORATION, INC., Case No. 2:19-cv-675 Judge Clark Waddoups Defendant. On September 23, 2019, Plaintiff David Sexton filed an action against Defendants Evergreen Village MHC (“Evergreen”) and Merchants & Medical Credit Corporation (“MMCC”), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act. (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint against both Defendants on April 3, 2020 (ECF No. 12), which both Defendants timely answered (see ECF Nos. 13, 14). Plaintiff thereafter filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against MMCC on May 1, 2020 (ECF No. 15) and a similar motion against Evergreen on May 4, 2020 (ECF No. 17). On June 4, 2020, the court assigned this case, and the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings, to Magistrate Judge Jared Bennett. (ECF No. 23). On July 20, 2020, and July 21, 2020, Judge Bennett issued two Reports and Recommendations (ECF Nos. 33 & 35) recommending that Plaintiff’s motions for judgment on the pleadings be denied. Plaintiff timely filed objections to those Reports and Recommendations on July 30, 2020. (ECF Nos. 37 & 38). Thereafter, Plaintiff accepted Evergreen’s Offer of Judgment (see ECF No. 44), judgment was entered against Evergreen Village (ECF No. 48), and Evergreen Village satisfied the judgment (ECF No. 51). Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00675-CW-JCB Document 52 Filed 11/24/20 PageID.433 Page 2 of 3 on the Pleadings against Evergreen (ECF No. 17), Judge Bennett’s Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s motion against Evergreen (ECF No. 35), and Plaintiff’s Objections to Judge Bennett’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 38) are moot and are DENIED AS MOOT. Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against MMCC seeks partial judgment on the pleadings only as to the question of whether MMCC violated the FDCPA. Such a request is procedurally improper, as Rule 12(c) does not “permit[] piecemeal judgment on part of a claim.” See Kenall Mfg. Co. v. Cooper Lighting, LLC, 354 F. Supp. 3d 877, 894 (N.D. Ill. 2018). Indeed, when it was passed, Rule 12(c) was designed to prevent “the piecemeal process of judicial determination.” See Noel v. Olds, 149 F.2d 13, 15 (D.C. Cir. 1945). As Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief he seeks, the court ACCEPTS Judge Bennett’s recommendation that the Motion be denied. Plaintiff raises four objections to Judge Bennett’s Report and Recommendation as to Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against MMCC (the “Report”), that the Report: 1) incorrectly combines the first two stages of adjudicating a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the “FDCPA”); 2) incorrectly disregards material and undisputed facts that are sufficient to adjudicate whether a FDCPA violation occurred; 3) erroneously relies upon MMCC’s unsupported assertion of the bona fide error defense; and 4) incorrectly reads a scienter requirement into the FDCPA. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has made “a de novo determination of those portions of [the Report] . . . to which [these] objection[s are] made,” and finds that each objection is baseless. Plaintiff has failed to offer any support for the threestep adjudication that he argues governs the adjudication of his FDCPA claim. Rather it seems that Plaintiff’s process arises from his own conceptualization of a FDCPA claim, not from precedent. The court declines to adopt Plaintiff’s regimented, and piecemeal, process. Because 2 Case 2:19-cv-00675-CW-JCB Document 52 Filed 11/24/20 PageID.434 Page 3 of 3 each of Plaintiff’s objections relies on the application of that process, each fails and is therefore OVERRULED. Judge Bennett’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 33) is APPROVED OF AND ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings against MMCC (ECF No. 15) is DENIED. DATED this 24th day of November, 2020. BY THE COURT: _______________________________ Clark Waddoups United States District Judge 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
