Judge Dismisses Case that Named 12 ARM Firms and Questioned Entire Collection System

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin began her discussion of a large class action case with the following passage:

Many of the legal arguments and factual allegations in plaintiffs’ eighty-eight page Amended Complaint are difficult to discern. A significant portion of the Amended Complaint consists of text copied and pasted, sometimes without citation, from newspaper articles.

It didn’t get much better for the plaintiffs in Shetiwy et al v. Midland Credit Management et al, a case dismissed Friday by Scheindlin. In her defense, she didn’t have much to work with. Here is how the plaintiffs kicked off their complaint:

The purpose of this lawsuit is to correct the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process abuses that have occurred over many years in the State Courts throughout the United States Court systems by principals, the debt collection companies that the principals have sold the debt to and the attorneys who represent those entities. In the debt collection process the Defendants have made the court systems of this country appear as if the courts were the O.K. Corral complete with Wild West shows, robo-signing, and an anything goes approach and other adjectival descriptions that are morally reprehensible, indefensible and vomitous.

In addition to seeking relief and damages under the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the case alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The case never really stood a chance, with Judge Scheindlin noting at one point that “one [FDCPA] allegation fails to state who made the harassing communications, or what they were about.”

Rather than seeking remedy for specific violations, the case was intended – in the plaintiffs’ own words – “to expose the criminal and civil violation” of the named defendants and, really, all parties that have ever engaged in debt collection. In addition to naming a dozen of the largest and most prominent debt buyers and collection agencies in the country, the case named the largest credit card issuers in the U.S. as defendants.

As impressive as the defendant list was, it was nothing compared to the class the 15 named plaintiffs were seeking. If the case moved forward, the plaintiffs were seeking a class comprised of basically any U.S. citizen who had been the focus of a debt collection action.

“It was a poorly plead complaint that made wild allegations, none of which were supported by facts,” said Donald Maurice, an attorney for two defendants in the case, Cavalry Portfolio Services and Equable Ascent Financial. “The decision calls this out and warns against bringing similar suits in the future.”

It is remarkable that the case made it this far. The case was filed in September 2012. In July, three banks – American Express, GE Capital, and Citi – won the right to force the case into arbitration (a decision that is under appeal from the plaintiffs) leaving the other defendants to answer.

The plaintiffs do have the right to appeal or file an amended complaint. But Judge Scheindlin wrote that “If plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint displays the confused, unintelligible, argumentative, speculative, or rambling qualities of plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint will be dismissed without leave to amend.”

 

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Collection Law Firms, Collection Laws and Regulations, Credit Card Receivables, Credit Grantors, Debt Buying, Debt Collection, FDCPA, Featured Post .

×
Subscribe to never miss important news and resources from insideARM.com:

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar Commercial Guy says:

    Wow….just wow….if I was an attorney and filed a complaint like this one, I would conclude that going by the Dew Drop Inn on the way home really didn’t constitute passing the bar…

  • avatar Andrew Schorn says:

    But if they stopped in at the Dew Drop Inn, then by definition…did not PASS the bar.

  • avatar Sisko says:

    After reading the decision, it appears the plaintiff just wanted a soapbox. Another choice line early in the plaintiff’s complaint: “Whether this Class Action Lawsuit is successful or not is secondary to the overall purpose of this action which is to expose the criminal and civil violations and those violations which have caused great suffering to the victims by the principals, the debt collectors and their attorneys against citizens of the United States.” I have to admit that it’s satisfying to see one of these rants get slapped down in court.

Leave a Reply