Opinion
Case No. 3:20 CV 19
05-18-2020
Andrew ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A., Defendant.
Andrew Rogers, Napoleon, OH, pro se. David J. Dirisamer, Barnes & Thornburg, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.
Andrew Rogers, Napoleon, OH, pro se.
David J. Dirisamer, Barnes & Thornburg, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.
ORDER
James G. Carr, Sr. U.S. District Judge
This is a removed pro se case. Pro se plaintiff Andrew Rogers filed a small claims complaint against defendant J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (Chase) in municipal court in Napoleon, Ohio, seeking $4,000.00 in damages on the basis of allegations that Chase "failed to validate [an] alleged debt" on his credit report. (Doc. 1-1 at 5). Chase removed the action to federal court because the complaint contained references to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (Doc. 1). Chase then moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), contending it fails to assert any actionable claim under the FDCPA and is otherwise "indecipherable and unintelligible." (Doc. 4 at 2, 3-6). In response, plaintiff filed a new "Complaint," alleging only that Chase violated various provisions of the Ohio Revised Code. (Doc. 5). The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment referencing both Ohio statutes and the FDCPA. (Doc. 7).
For the reasons stated below, Chase's motion to dismiss is granted with respect to any federal claim the plaintiff brings under the FDCPA; the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied with respect to any such claim; and the state-law claims the plaintiff asserts are remanded to state court.
Discussion
1. Chase's Motion to Dismiss
To survive dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, a "complaint must present enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Total Benefits Planning Agency, Inc. v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield , 552 F.3d 430, 434 (6th Cir. 2008). When adjudicating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court must presume the factual allegations in the complaint are true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Id.
Even liberally construed, the plaintiff's complaint cannot survive a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal with respect to any federal claim he seeks to assert under the FDCPA. The FDCPA prohibits a debt collector from the use of "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt." Wallace v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 683 F.3d 323, 326 (6th Cir. 2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1692e ).
In order to establish a claim, a plaintiff must show is that the defendant is a "debt collector" as defined by the Act, among other elements. See id. The term "debt collector" has a particular meaning. It refers only to persons attempting to collect debts due another. MacDermid v. Discover Financial Services, 488 F.3d 721, 734 (6th Cir. 2007). A "creditor," however, is not a debt collector under the Act, and creditors are not subject to suit when collecting their accounts. Id. at 734-35.
Chase contends it is not a debt collector, and neither the plaintiff's complaint nor his subsequent filings allege facts sufficient to support a plausible inference that Chase is a debt collector, as opposed to a creditor, with respect to the debt referenced in his complaint. Accordingly, his complaint fails to state a claim against Chase under the FDCPA. His unclear and conclusory references to the FDCPA (Doc. 7 at 1) are insufficient to demonstrate a plausible FDCPA claim. See In re Rostorfer , 497 B.R. 873, 875 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Ohio 2013) (granting motion to dismiss and holding that a defendant need not produce evidence negating the plaintiffs’ conclusory allegation that it is a debt collector).
2. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
For the same reasons, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment with respect to any claim he asserts under the FDCPA is denied. Summary judgment is warranted only when a movant demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The plaintiff has not alleged facts plausibly suggesting that Chase is a debt collector, much less that there is no genuine issue of fact on this point, or that he is entitled to judgment against Chase as a matter of law on a FDCPA claim.
3. Plaintiff's State-Law Claims
In light of the absence of any plausible federal claim in the case, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any statutory claims the plaintiff asserts under Ohio law.
Accordingly, based on principles of fairness and comity, the plaintiff's state-law claims will be remanded to state court. See Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Federal Exp. Corp. , 89 F.3d 1244, 1254–55 (6th Cir. 1996) ("When all federal claims are dismissed before trial, the balance of considerations usually will point to dismissing the state law claims or remanding them to state court if the action was removed").
Conclusion
It is, therefore,
ORDERED THAT
1. Chase's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 4) is granted with respect to any federal claim the plaintiff asserts under the FDCPA;
2. The plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7) on such claim is denied;
3. All other state-law claims the plaintiff alleges will be remanded to the Napoleon Municipal Court;
4. I further certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
So ordered.