West v. Americas Processing Center Inc et al, No. 5:2016cv00029 - Document 33 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 9/25/2018. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
West v. Americas Processing Center Inc et al Doc. 33 IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT ----.. x,s'' E:!j7F9/25/2018 icfUSDISXCOU#' F , . k)noAxixkvA .., . yjuso FO R TH E W E STERN D ISTRICT O F W RG IN IA H ARRISON BURG DIW SION BE TW S/J.Vasquez SE? 2 i 2018 t-.-r' ' q.-l 'I ' f 3 ? k rzNN1 /. . M .W E ST , . u..- Plaintiffy 1 :: h1 :2 ,I L . - #4 :N1 ! 44 7 'MJ!jd r P!7Y CL ,6.....rk y.' * '- CivilAction N o.5:16-cv-00029 V. AM E RICAS PRO CESSIN G CEN TER,IN C.,eta1., By:M ichaelF.U rbansld ChiefUnited StatesDistrictludge D efendant. G M O RAN DU M O PIN IO N Thisacdon arisesundertheFairDebtCollecdonPtacdcesAct(I<FDCPA'') 15 U.S.C.j1692etseq.PlaintiffBettyM.W est(d<W est'')allegesthatAmericasProcessing Center,Inc.rfAPC'')andV chaelR.lackson,theownerofAPC,engagedinacampaignof debtcollection abuseandviolatedtheFG DebtCollecéon PracdcesAct,15U.S.C.jj1692 etseq.(<TFDCPA''I.ICompl.,ECF No.2.PendingbeforethecourtareW est'smotion for defaultjudgment ECF No.22,and mpdon forattorney fees,ECF No.24.Pursuantto28 U.S.C.j6369$(1)7),thecourtreferredbothmotionstoUnitedStatesMagistrateludgeloel C.H pppe forareportand recom m endadon.ECF N o.20. Themagistratejudgeheardoralargumentonthemoéonsonlanuary9,2018,ECF No.26,and accepted addidonalbrieûngin suppol'tofthemodon fordefaultjudgmenton January30,2018.ECF No.28.In areportand recomm endadonissued onluly 25,2018,the 1W estnamedGregoryBlue,ReneWard,Charlesloane,andlolm Doeasdefendantsatthetimeof61inghercomplaint @CFNo.2),butstipulatedtotheirdismissalfrom theacdonwithoutprejudiceonlanuary!0,2018.ECFNo.29.The courtorderedthesedefendants'clismissalwithoutprejucliceonFebruary1,2018.ECFNo.30, Dockets.Justia.com magistratejudgerecommendedgranéngW est'smodonsfordefaultjudgmentandattorneys' feesasto APC only.ECF N o.31. Themagistratejudgerecommendedfindingpersonaljurisdicéon overAPC based on itsem ployees'debtcollecdon phone callsto W estatherhom ei. n Grottoes,Virginia and W est'sallegation thatone ofAPC'Sem ployee represented thatshewasan agentofthe CommonwealthofVirginia.ECFNo.31,at*9.Themagistratejudgefurtherrecommended ûndingthatAPC violated theFDCPA because(1)W estisaconsumerpsdefmedby 15 U.S.C.j1692a(1);(2)W estheldapaydayloanthatqualifiesasdebtunderj1692a(5);(3) APCisadebtcollectorpursuantto15U.S.C.j1692a(6)based onitsattempttocollectdebt owedtoAlliedCashAdvance;and(4)APC'SagentsclsimedtoworkfortheCommonwealth ofVirginia,failed to idendfythem selvesasdebtcollectotsorconvey thatinfotm adon obtained would be used fordebtcollecdon purposes,generally intim idated W est,and failed to providewritten disclosuresundezj1692d,j1692e,andj1692g.ECF No.31,at*12-16. AlthoughrecommendingdefaultjudgmentagainstAPC,themagistratejudge recommendedhndingthatthecouttdoesnothavepersonaljurisdicéonoverlacksonand denyingthemodon fordefaultjudgmentasto him.ECF No.31,at*9-10,26.The magistratejudgefound thatthecourtlackedpersonaljurisdiction overlackson becausehis involvem entin tlnisaction waslinnited to creadng and overseeing thepozciesand procedures usçd atAPC,and did notextend to personalcontactsto W est.ECF N o.31,at*9-10.Even ifthecourthadpersonaljtzrisdicéon,themagistratejudgeconcluded thatW estfailed to state aclaim uponwhichteliefcouldbegranted.ECFNo.li1,at*16-17.W est'scomplaintdoes notpzovidesufhcientfactsto supportthatlackson isadebtcollectororthathepersonaEy parécipatedinAPC'SalkgedviolationsoftheFDCPA.ECF N o.31,at*17. AfterfindingAPC violated theFDCPA,themagistlutejudgerecommended awarding acttzaldamagesof$5,000dueto theseverityofW est'ssymptom sfollowingAPC'Sinidal debtcollection contact,and $1,000in stamtorydamagesbasedon hisdeterminaéon that APC'Sconductwasintentional.ECF No.31,at*21.Themagistratejudgefurther recommendedawardinglitigation costsof$165and attorneyfeesof$9,506.25given counsel'sexpedence,hoursrequested based on thesuccessfulcllim s,and reasonablenessof thehoursexpended in thisacdon.ECF N o.31,at*22-26.W esttim ely fzed a lim ited objectiontothemagistratejudge'szecommendadonperyainingonlytoherclnimsagaiqst Jackson.ECF No.32. Forthereasonsstatedbelow,thecouttwillOVERRULE W est'sobjections, AD O PT thereportand recom m endation to the extentconsistentwith thisopinion, GRANT inpartW est'smodonfordefaultjudgment,andGRANT W est'smodonfor attorney feesand costs. 1. Rule72$)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedtzrepetvnitsapartytoffserveandftle specific,wtitten objecéons''toamagistratejudge'sproposedûndingsandzecommendadons within fourteen daysofbeing served with acopy ofthereport.See also 28U .S.C. j636q$(1).TheFourthCirctzithasheldthatanobjecdngpartymustdosoffwithsuffkient speciikityso asreasonablyto alertthedisttictcourtofthetrueground fortheobjection.'' UnitedStatesv.Mid ette,478F.3d 616,622(4th Cir.2007),certdenied,127 S.Ct.3032 (2007). To conclude otherwise would defeat the purpose ofzeqlliting objections.W ewould bepermitdngapartyto appealanyissue thatwasbetbrethemagistrate judge,regardlessofthenature and scopeofobjectionsmadeto themagistratejudge'sreport. Either the disttict courtwould then have to review every issue irl the magistrate judge's proposed fmdings and recom m endations or cotzrts of appeals w ould be required to review issues that the district courtnever considered.ln either case,judicialresoutceswouldbewastedand thedistrictcourt's effecdvenessbasçd on help from magistrate judgeswould be undetvnined. J-dsThedistrictcourtmustdetermineA novo anyportion ofthemagisttatejudge'sreport andrçcommendadontowhichaproperobjectionhasbeenmade.Tf-f'hedistdctcourtmay accept,reject,ormodifytherecommendeddisposidon;receivefl'ttherevidence;orretutn themattertothemagistratejudgewithinstrtzctions.''Fed.R.Civ.#.72q$(3)9accord28 U.S.C.j6369$(1).ffGeneralobjectionsthatmerelyreiteratearplmentspresentedtothe magistratejudgelackthespecifkityrequiredunderRule72,andhavethesameeffectasa failuretoobject,orasawaiverofsuchobjection.''Moonv.BWX Techs.,Inc.,742F.Supp. 2d 827,829 (W .D.Va.2010)(citingVene v.Astrue,539F.Supp.2d 841,845(W.D.Va. 2008)),aff'd,498F.App'x 268 (4th Cit.2012);seealso Thomasv.Azn,474U.S.140,154 (1985)rTrllhestatutedoesnotrequitethejudgetoreview anissue2qnovoifnoobjecdons aref11ed.''). Ftlrther,objectionsthatonlyrepeatargumentsraised beforethemagisttatejudgeare consideredgeneralobjectionstotheentitetyofthereportandrecommendation.SeeVene , 539 F.Supp.2d at845.A sthe courtnoted in V eney: 4 Allowing a lidgantto obtain d. q novo review ofherentite case . by merelyrefonnatting an çatlierbriefasan objecdon frmakgesj the initialreference to the m agistrate useless.The f'unctions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the m agistrate and the district court perform identical tasks.This éuplication oftimeand effortwastesjuclicialresourcesrather than saving them , and runs contrary to the pum oses of the M agistratesAct.''Howard gv.Sec' ofHea1th & Human Servs.j, 932F.2d (5051,509((6thCir.1991)1. 539 F.Supp.2d at846.A plaintiffwho reiteratesherpreviously raised argum entswillnotbe given ffthe second biteatthe apple she seeks.''Id.Instead,herre-filed briefwillbe treated as ageneralobjecéon,which hasthesameeffectasafailuretoobject.Id. II. Inherlimitedobjecdon,W estsupportsthemagisttatejudge'srecommendationof enteringdefaultjudgmentagainstAPC and awatdingattorneyfeesand costs.zSeeObj.to Mag.Judge'sR.& R.NotFinclingP1.Entitledto Defaultl.AgainstDef.M ichaelR.Jackson rT1.'sObj.''),ECFNo.32,at5.However,shedisagreeswiththemagistratejudge'sEndings regardingpersonaljurisdicéonoverlacksonandlnisliability.W estarguesthatlackson's ow nerslûp and operation ofAPC,creadon ofAPC'Scollecdon policiesand procedures, . oversightofthe application ofthese policiesand pzocedures,and m anagem entofthe daily collecéon operaéons- including authorization ofthecollecdon effortsin interstate commerce- supportsafinding ofpetsonaljtuisclicdon.Id.at2.W estalso contendsthatthe courtshouldinferthatlackson wasbot.h theunidentiied callezand ffcharlesKane.'73Id.at 3.lnaddition to thepersonaljurisdicdon objecdon,W estcontendsthatthecomplains 2Westdoesnotobjecttothemagistratejudge'srecommendadonthatthecourtgranthermodonfordefaultjudgment againstAPC.Aftercarefulreviem thecourtacceptstherecom m endaéon. 3W estallegesthatshe received debtcollecdon callsfrom an unidentified m an on M ay 12,2015 and a m an idenéfying himselfasfTcharlesKane''onMay26,2015.SeeCompl.,ECFNo.2,at!!I20,36. sufûcientlyallegesJackson'sliabilityforAPC'SviolaéonsoftheFDCPA.Ldaat3.W est arguesthatlackson qualifiesasadebtcoEectorandviolated theFDCPA based on the inferencethatlackson called.asthçf'unidentifiedman''orffcharlesKane.''Thecot' trt reviewsthemagistratejudge'srecommendationX novo. A. Rule 55 ofthe FederalRulesofCivilProceduregovernsentriesofdefaultand default judgments.PutsuanttoRule55(a),theClerkmustenterdefaultagainstapartythatffhas failed to plead orotherwise defend''againstan acdon.A fterthe Clezk hasentered default,a plaindffmayseekadefaultjudgmentagainstadefendantpprsuanttoRule559$.A court mustffexercisesoundjudicialdiscretion''whenconsideringwhethertoenterdefatTlt judgment,ffandthemovingpartyisnotentitledtodefaultjudgmentasamattezofright.'' EM1A r.Music lnc.v.W hite,618F.Supp.2d 497,505(E.D.Va.2009)(citingSentry SelectIns.Co.v.LBL Slcysystems(U.S.A.)Inc.,486F.Supp.2d496,502 (E.D.Pa.2007)). TheUnited StatesCourtofA ppealsfortheFourth Circtzithasexpressed <<a strong preferencethat,asageneralm attet,defaultsbeavoided and thatcbim sand defensesbe disposed ofon theirm erits.''Colleton Pre arato A cad. Inc.v.H ooverUrziversal Inc.,616 F.3d413,417(4thCit.2010).Defaultjudgmentmaybeappropriate,however,dfwhenthe adversary processhasbeen halted becauseofan essendally unresponsive party.''S.E.C.v. Lawbau h,359F.Supp.2d 418,421(D.M d.2005). Upon default,any well-pled allegadonsasto liabilityare taken astrtze.See EntrepreneurM edia.Inc.v.JM D Entm'tGm .,LLC,958F.Supp.2d 588,594 (13.M d. 2013).N everyheless,acourtm uststillJfdeterminewhetherthewell-pleadedallegationsin Fheplaintiff's)complaintsupportthereliefsought.'?R an v.Homecomin sFin.Network, 253F.3d778,780(4thCit.2001);seealsoGlobalsantaFeCo .v.Globalsantafe.com,250 F.Supp.2d610,612n.3(E.D.Va.2003)rfupondefatzlt,factsallegedinthecomplaintare deemedadmitted andtheappropriateinquiryiswhetherthefactsasalleged stateaclqim.''). Accordingly,the ffappropriateinquiry iswhetherornotthe face ofthepleadingssupports thedefaultjudgmentand thecausesofaction therein.''United Statesv.Newbill,No.7:15CV-00009,2015WL 4393418,at*1 (W .D.Va.luly14,2015)(quodngAnderson v.Found. forAdvancementEduc.& Em 'tofAm.Indians,No.99-1508,1999W L 598860,at*1(4th Cir.Aug.10,1999)).ln contrast,allegadonsrelatingto damagesarenotdeemedadmitted, even w hen a defendanthasfailed to respond.A ccordingly,the courtm ustm ake an ffindependentdete- inaéon zegarcling dam ages.''Entte reneurM edia Inc.,958 F.Supp.2d at593.Rule 55providesthatacouttm ay,asitdeem snecessary,conductan evidentiary hearingtoffdeterminetheamountofdamages.''Fed.R.Civ.P.554$(2)7). B. ThecourtneedonlyaddressW est'sflrstobjecdonzegarclingpersonaljurisdiction overlacksonbecausethecourtagreeswiththemagistratejudge'srecommendaéon.W hena courtconsidersffaquestionofpersonaljurisdictionbased on thecontentsofacomplaint and supporting affidavits,theplaintiffhasthe burden ofm aking a ptim afacie showingin supportofitsasseréon ofjutisdiction.''UnivetsalLeather,LLC v.Koro AR,S.A.,773F.3d 553,558(4th Cir.2014)(ciéngConsuldn En 'rsCo .v.GeometricLtd.,561F.3d 273, 276 (4th Cir.2009)).In determiningifaplaintiffhasmetthisburden,acolzrtTTmustconstrue allrelevantpleading allegadonsin the lightm ostfavorableto thepbintiff,assum e credibility, anddraw themostfavorableinferencesfortheexistenceofjutisdicdon.''Ld.(quodng Combsv.Bakker,886F.2d 673,676(4th Cir.1989)). Beforeexercisingpersonaljurisdicdonoveranonresidentdefendant,acourtmust find thattwo condiéonsare satisfied.First,the state'slong-arm stam tem ustauthorize exerciseofjutisdictioninthecircumstancespresented.Second,theexerciseofjutisdicéon m ustcom portwith Foutteenth Am endm entdueprocessstandards.SeeEllicot'tM ach. Corp.,Inc.v.JohnHoBandPartyLtd.,995F.2d474,477(4thCir.1993).TheFotlrthCircuit hasintemreted Virginia'slong-arm stamte,VirgirliaCodej8.01-328.1,ascoextensiyew1t11 theDueProcessClause.SeeEn lish& Snlithv.Metz er,901F.2d36,38(4thCir.1990) (ciéngPeanutCo .ofAm.v.Holl oodBrands Inc.,696F.2d311,313(4thCit.1982)). BecauseVitgirzia'slong-nrm statuteextendspersonaljurisdicdon totheouterboundsofdue process,the two-prong testcollapsesinto a singleinqut 'ty when assessing personal ' )urisdiction in Vitginia. Fairnessisthetouchstone ofthe judsdicdonalinqut 'ry,and the fminim um contacts' test is premised on the concept that a comozation thatenjoys the privilege ofconducting business within a state bearsthereciprocaloblkation ofanswering to legalproceedingsthere.In the contextofspecificjurisdiction, therelevantconductm usthaveonly such a connecdon with the fortzm stat: that itis fait for the defendant to defend itselfin that state. W e do m ore than fotm ulaically count contacts, instead taking into accountthe qualitative nature ofeach ofthe defendant'sconnectionsto the forum state.In thatvein,a single act by a defendant can be sufficient to sadsfy the necessary quality and nature ofsuch nninim alcontacts,although casualor isolated contacts are insufficient to trigger an oblkation to litigatein tlw forum . TireEn ' v.Shandon Lin lon RubberCo.,682 F.3d 292,301(4th Cir.2012)(internal quotationsand citationsornitted). 8 Thequesdon,then,iswhetherdefendanthassufficientffminim um contactswith gvirginialsuch thatthemaintenanceofthesuitdoesnotoffend fttaditionalnodonsoffair playandsubstandaljustice.'''Int'lShoeCo.v.W ashin ton,326U.S.310,316(1945) (quotingMillikenv.Me er,311U.S.457,463(1940)).ThetTnainimum contacts''testreqlnites thatdefendantspurposefully availthem selvesoftheforum state.Bur erIfin Co .v. Rudzewicz,471U.S.462,475(1985).Tllistestnimsto ensutedefendantsarenotffhaledinto ajurisdiction solelyasaresultoftandom,fortuitous,orattenuated contacts,''tdz. ,and affords defendantsprotection ttfrom having todefend gthemselves)ina fortzm wheregtheyjshould nothaveanticipatedbeingsued.''Consultin En 'rs,561F.3dat277 (cidngW orld-W ide Volkswa en Cor .v.W oodson,444U.S.286,297,100S.Ct.559(1980)). Determiningthereachofjudicialpoweroverpersonsoutsideofastate'sborders underthe InternationalShoe standard isundertaken through consideration oft'wo categories ofpersonaljurisclicéon- generalandspecific.SeeDnimlerAG v.Bauman,134S.Ct.746, 754 (2014).Generaljurisclicdon requiresasubstandalconnection to the fotazm;the defendant'scontactsmustbeso condnuousand system adcasto renderlnim essentially Tfat home.'?Id.at754,760(cidngGood earDunlo TiresO erations S.A.v.Brown,131S.Ct. 2846,2851-54(2011)).Specificjuzisdiction existsinasuitarisingoutoforrelatedtothe defendant'scontactswith the forum .Li at754.tf Theremustbean afflliation between the . forum andtheunderlyingcontroversy,principally,(an)activityotan occurrencethattakes placeinthefortzm State.W henthereisnosuchconnecdon,specificjurisdictionislacldng regardlessofthe extentofa defendant'sunconnected activiéesin the State.''Bristol-M ers 9 SquibbCo.v.SuperiqrCourtofCalifornia,SanFranciscoCtp,137S.Ct.1773,1781(2017) (internalcitadon andquotation marksomitted). W estlimitsherobjectiontothemagistratejudge'sfindingonspecifk jurisdicdon.In assessing specifk jurisdicdon,courtsemploy athree-parttestto dete= inewhetherthe exezciseofspecificjutisdictionoveranonresidentdefendantcomportswit.hthe requirementsofdueprocess.Comtsevaluate:d<(1)theextenttowhichthedefendant pumosefullyavailed itselfoftheprivilegeofconducting activiéesin theState;(2)whether theplaintiffrs)cloimsariseoutofthoseactivitiesdirected attheState;and (3)whetherthe exerciseofpersonaljtuisdicéonwould beconstitazdonallyreasonable.''PTA-FLA,Inc.v. ZTE Co .,715F.App'x237,242(4thCir.2017)(quotingESAB G .Inc.v.ZurichIns. PLC,685F.3d 376,391(4th Cir.2012)). ThvpersonaljurisdicdoninquiryforFDCPA casesisnotstraightforward.In the W estern DistrictofVirginia,courtshaveexercisedpersonaljuzisdiction ovetapresidentand dominantshareholderofadebtcollectioncompanywho (1)indirectlyanddirectlycollected debtsbyobtainingnew collecdonaccountsforthecompanyand(2)receivedacommission forthoseaccounts.SeeW estv.Costen,558F.Supp.564,585(W.D' .Va.1983)r% nofficer ofa com oraéon cannotbeheld personally liable forthewrongfulconductofthe com oration'semployee'absentpersonalitw olvem entwith theconduct....gAlsM SF'S donainantshateholder,Costen can beheld personally liableundertheFD CPA ifthe undisputedfactsofthiscasejustifydisregardingM SF'Scom orateentitp'').4In aseparate 4The courtin Costen held thatthepresidentdid notpersonallyviolatethe FD CPA and thuscould notbe held liableas an individual.The focusofthecase wason the potendaldisregard ofthe president'scom orate endty.Courtshave held thatffgpjersonalliabilitycanbeimposedtmdertheFDCPA eitherunderthetheoryofpersonalitwolvementitzthe conductorby piercing comoratevei' 'Powersv.CzeclitM t.Servs.Inc.,No.8:11CV436,2016WL 612251,at*9(D. v 10 acdon,the courthasdislnissed an FD CPA claim againstofficersand ownersofa debt collecéon agency forfailing to statea cbim becausethere wereno allegadonsthatthey personally engaged in acdvidesthatm ade them qualify asdebtcollectorsundetthe FD CPA . SeeThomasv.Finneran,No.CIV.A.7:09CV00354,2009W L 2588348,at*1-2 (W.D.Va. Aug.20,2009)CofficersarenotliableundertheFDCPA solelybyvirt'ueoftheofûcesthat theyhold and stockholdersarenotliablesolely byvirtaze ofthe factthatthey are stoclcholders.').Neitherofthesecasesspecifkallyaddressedpersonaljurisclicdonoverthe officersand effectively assumed such jurisdiction forreview ofthemerits.Cf.D denv. Accreclited Collecéon A enc lnc.,No.3:14-CV-255,2015WL 3646649,at*3 (E.D.Va. June10,2015)(enteringdefaultjudgmentagainstcompanyandrelyingonFinnerantohold thatCEO wasnota debtcollectorbecause plainéffaEeged thatCEO statusim puted liability, butnotadclressing personaljurisdicéon). Outsideofthisdistrict,courtshavefoundpersonaljutisdicéonoverdefendantswho own and contzoldebtcoiecdon com paniesin lirnited circmnstances.ln Po ev.V o e1,N o. 97 C 1835,1998W L 111576,at*3. -4 (N.D.111.Mar.5,1998),thedisttictcourtin the Northern DistrictofIllinoisexercisedspecifk jurisdiction overthepresidentand ownerofa debtcollecdon com pany even though hisffcontactswith Illinoisarelim ited to the debt collecéonpracdcesofhiscompanies''because(1)thedebtcollecdonpracdcesconcerned Illinoisresidentsindebtedto lliscompany;(2)heTfclirectstheaffairsof130th companies,and isthesoleemployeeofPAF andoneoftwo employeesof. AAC1'';and (3)heffdirected PAF to ptuchase orcollectdebtsfrom individualswho residein Illinois.'' Neb.Feb.2,2016).W estdoesnotappeartoaskthecouzttodisregardthecomoratefo= toholdlacksonliable,and hasnotofferedanyargument(orapparentlyanysupportingallegadons)tothateffect. However,thisevaluadonofpersonaljtzrisdictiondependsontheownetoroffkerof acom pany'slevelofinvolvem entin the decision m aking forthe debtcollecéon atissue.For example,inBickle v.Gre o ,No.2:16CV131,2016W L 6306148,at*2(E.D.Va.Oct.7, 2016),re ortand recommendadon ado ted,No.2:16CV131,2016W L 6398804 (E.D.Va. Oct.26,2016),thecourtexercisedpersonaljurisdicéonoveranownerinadefaultjudgment action based on the owner'stransacdon ofbusinessin Virgl 'm'a,including herconversadons withadebtcollecdonemjloyeeaboutthedemandfordebtpaymentandinstnzcéonstothe employeeto takecertain acéons.Cf.Bmjisv.Sham 876F.Supp.975,980 (N.D.111.1995) (exercisingjlzrisdictionoverofficers,andelectingnottoapplyfiduciarysllielddoctrine, where officerswerein aposition to decidewhetherthe contactsw1t. 1:the fotnlm w erem ade and hadbeen warned thattheirpracécewasdecepévebytheFederalTradeComnnission). Thisanalysisoften ttzrnson whethertheow nerorofficerhad personalin-forum contacts.IntheDistrictofMassachusetts,thecotzrtfoundtherewasnopersonaljurisdicdon overcom orate ofik ersbecause theplaindfffailed to m akesuffkientfacm alallegaéons aboutthe officers'personalin-fortzm contactsand m adeconclusoryallegadonsabouttheir operaéon ofthe com pany and petsonalknowledge ofthe businesspracéces.SeeG ricev. VlM Holdin sG .LLC,280F.Supp.3d258,278-79 (9.Mass.2017).Similarly,thecourt in theDistrictofDelawaredismissed an FDCPA cbim on personaljurisclicéon grounds wheretheplaintiffonly alleged thatan individualdefendantwasemployed asacollectorfor adebtcollection company,butdid notaddresswhetherthedefendpntm aintained contacts with the fot'um oracted in the fom m .See Gunn v.S ecialized Loan Servicin LLC,N o.CV 15-810rRGA,2016W L 1073285,at*30 .Del.M ar.18,2016). 12 D irectcontactbetween the ownerorofficerand plaindffm ay notbenecessary to establishpersonaljurisdicdon.InacasewithnoHirectcontactbetweentheplaintiffand defendant,the districtcourtofthe DistrictofN ew M exico evaluated thelevelofcontrola sole proprietorofadebtcollection company had overherem ployees.SeeG alle osv. Tyo-tl,No.CIV.14-291JCH/IQK,2017W L4872887,at*4-5(D.N.M .July20,2017).The courtfoundjurisdicéonoverthesoleproprietorbasedontheacdvidesofheragentsbecause she assigned plaintiff'sdebtto herem ployeedebtcollector,herem ployeescalled the plainéff aspartoftheirem ploym entduties,and shehad the rightto train and m onitorherdebt collectorsand m onitortheitcollectionsaccounts.Id. The courtnotesthatm any ofthese caseswere decidepriorto the U.S.Suprem e Coutt's2017 decision in Bristol-M ersS tzibb,which em phasized the need foran dfacdvity oran occurrence thattakesplacein the forum State.''137 S.Ct.at1781.Even so,these casesrequirethattheplaindffallege a contact,eitherdirectly by the ownerorofficeror indirectly thtough a signifkantlevelofcontroloverthe actionsofan em ployee,in ordetto obtain personaljurisdiction.Heze,W estdoesnotsuffkientlyallegecontactorany çonnectionbetweenlackson and herFDCPA clnim inVirginia.W estdoesnotallegethat Jacksonwaspersonallyinvolvedin thecollecdon practicesaffecdngherdebt.Shebroadly allegesthatlackson createdAPC'Scollection policiesandprocedures,managedAPC'Sdaily collection operaéons,and oversaw the applicaéon ofthepoliciesand procedures.Com pl., ECF No.2,at! 5.ButW estdoesnotallegewhethertheemployeeswerefollowingthese policiesand procedureswhen engagingin theFD CPA violaéons:whetherlackson directed orcontrolled such conduct,oriftherewere any otherowners,officers,ordirectorsofAPC thatcouldberesponsibleforsuchconduct.Shedoesnotaddresshow muchconttollackson m ay have overAPC in genezal,w hetheritisacom pany with few em ployeesorm any,orif Jackson hasacted in am annezthatsuggestsheintended forAPC to targetVirgitniadebtors. ln herobjectionsto thezeportand recommendation,W esttriesto crtateJackson's purposefulavmilm entorl' lisafflliation with herclnim in Virginia by arguing thatthe court shouldinferlacksonwas130th theunidendfied callerandTfchatlesKane.''JI. L at3.Thecourt recognizesthatplaintiffsin othetacdonshave alleged thatdefendantsused aliasesin their FD CPA actionswith success.See,e.g.,W illiam sv.Prof'lCollecdon Servs.,Inc.,N o.CV 04- 286JSARI,,2004 WL 5462235,at*3-4 (E.D.N.Y.Dec.7,2004)(t<Theplnintiffcontendsin herm em orandum thatthephonem essagesw ere Ekely m adeeitheroneor130th ofthe ownersusingthealiasqirnmylfinp'Assllming thesefactsto betrtze,theplaintiffh' asalleged sufficientfactsto holdJamesVogelandJamesDorsaliableundertheFG DebtCollecdon PracécesAct.?').However,theplaintiffsm adetheallegationsin thosecases.Thiscourt cannotinferallegationsthatarenotpresentin the com plaint,parécularly on default judgmentwherethedefendingpartyhasnotrespondedtotheallegationsactuallystated. Thecompbintasitstandjdoesnotsupportafinding ofpersonaljudsdicdon. However,W est'sargumentinherobjecdonsthatlacksoncalledherviaunidenéfiedcallsor asffcharlesK ane''suggeststhatshe m ay beableto allege suffkientfactsin supportof personaljurisdicéon.ThecourtwillprovideW estwith leavetoam end hercbim against Jacksononlybasedonthedeficienciesnotedinthisopinionandin themagistratejudge's reportandrecommendadon.IfW estdecidesto amend hercomplaintagainstlackson in tllis district,shewould bew ell-advised to considerthevery fact-specificinqllitiesaddressed by othercouttsin assessingw hetheran ow nerozoffk erisadebtcozectotorengaged in an FD CPA violadon.W ithoutassessing them erits,the courtnotesthatcourtsthroughoutthe countty place a significantem phasison the officer'sor owner'spersonalinvolvem entin the debtcollecéon action orhisorherlevelofcontroloverthe com pany.sA num berofcourts haveheld thatffgaln individualcanbefoundpersonallyliableiftheindividual1)matetially pardcipatedin collecting thedebtatissue;2)exercisegdqcontrolovertheaffaitsofgthej business;3)waspersonallyinvolvedin thecollection ofthedebyatissue,or4)waszegularly engaged,ditectly and indirectly,in thecollection ofdebts.''Pow ersv.CreditM t.Servs. lnc.,No.8:11CV436,2016WL 612251,at*9n.12 0 .Neb.Feb.2,2016)(noéngalso that f<gmlostdistrictcourtsthathaveaddressed theissuehaveheld thatthecom oratestructure doesnotinsulate shareholders,officers,orditectorsfrom personalliabilityunderthe FDCPA.'');seealso Rossv.I.C.S s.Inc.,N o.08-3008-CV-S-DW ,2008R 11336931,at 5See e..,Cruzv.Int'lCollecdonCo .,673F.3d991,999-1001 (9thCir.2012)(Sndingownerwasadebtcollector based on tesdm ony thatheclid everything forcom pany,including collecdon duti es,und thathe violated the FD CPA by signingalettertotheplaindffthatincludedfalseinformadon);Baltazarv.Houslan er& Assocs.,PTJ, C,No.16-4982 (JNIA)(AKX,2018WL3941943,at*17-18(E. D.N.Y.Aug.16,2018)(recommendingdertialofmoéontodismiss becauseplqintiffallegedthatthesolem em berofthecom papywaspersonallyit w olvedwith thealleged violadon, çonttolleddebtcollecdonacti vities,andsignedtherestrliningnoticeatissue);Schwarm v.Craihead,552F.Supp.2d 1056,1073-74(E.D.Cal.2008)(imposingpersonalliabilitywhere'thecollecdonactivitiesofthecompanywereitssole source ofincome,and the only proft-generating acévity the presidentand directoroversaw w ascollecting debts- while thepresidentclid notdraftthe fo= collecdon lettersthe com pany used,hewasone ofonly three inclividualsthathad fmalauthorityoverthecompany'scollecdonprocedures);Som v.DanielsLaw OfEces.P.C.,573F.Supp.2d349,35556(D.Mass.2008)(denyingmoéontodismissbecausealthoughstattzsasèmployeeandstakeholderalonecouldnot subjectdefendanttoFDCPA liability,hisinvolvementinïfformtllating,implementing,and/ozradfyingtheLlanguageof thedebt-collecdonletter)andthetmderlyingdebtcollectionpzacécesofdefendant1aw 6- ''allowedforpossiblejoint andseveralliability);Piperv.PortnoffLaw Assocs.,274F.Supp.2d681,689-90(E.D.Pa.2003)(tfgfjnclividualswho exercisecontrolovertheaffairsofabusinessmaybeheldliabletmdertheFDCPA forthebusiness''acdons. '');Pabonv. Recko,No.3:00CV380DJSTPS,2001WL 36356981,at*5-6(D.Corm.Apr.25,2001)(fmdingmajorityownertobe liable forFD CPA violadonsbecauseheinvesdgated pbindff'spotenûalliability and took sevezalotheracéonsinvolving thecollecdonofplqindff'sdebt);Mussov.Seiders,194F. R.D.43,47@ .Conn.1999)(ff'1Yepllindffdoesnotseekto hold thedefendantliablesim plybyvirtueofhisposidonwith CRA;rather,sheallegesthatheispersonallyliableasa debtcollectorbecauseheknew oftheallegedlytm lawfulprocedm esbeingused butneverthelessapprovedorratzed them.'');E liv.Bass,No.98C 2001,1998WL 560270,at*2(N.D.111.Aug.26,1998)(tindingownerandprincipalof companyliableunderFD CPA notbecauseofherposidonsbutbecauseshèdevised andimplementedthecom pany's proceduresandpersonallyapprovedtheletteratissue);;Ten v.Metro.RetailRecove Tnc.,851F.Supp.61,67 @. D.N.Y.1994)(fm .dingpresidentandmanageytobedebtcollectorsbasedinpat 'tontheiracdonablephonecalls). ' *1-2(W .D.Mo.Aug.5,2008)(same).UnderRule55,tlniscourtmuststillffdetet-mine whetherthewell-pleaded allegaéonsin gtheplaindff'sqcomplaintsupportthereliefsoughty'' seeR-y= ,253 F.3d at780,and these casescould guidewhethersuffkientfactsexistin this action to supportlackson'sallegedFDCPA liability. 111. Forthe teasons stated above,tlaecouttAD O PT S the tepottand tecomm endadon to theextentconsistentwith tltisopinion,G RAN TS in partW est'sm otion fordefault judgment,andGRANTSW est'smodon forattorneyfeesandcosts.' l'hecourtGRANTS LEAVE TU AM END thecomplaintsolelyasto thecbim againstlacksonin orderto remedytlw dehcienciessetforthinthisopinionandthemagistratejudge'sreportand recommendation.Anyamendedcomplaintmustbeflledwithinthirty(30)daysofthis OP1fl1On. An appropriateO rderwillbeentered thisday. Entered: D q p .jjjjy,' d r : ' . (' @ . . .. . .: ;=r jj . . ..y.;y: , ;s, . i - a. M ichaelF.U rbansld chiefUnitZstatesDisttictludge . zjtqx ; ,.. kkv x) .
]]>
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.
