Summary
In Curnal v. LVNV Funding, No. 10-2610-EFM, 2011 WL 2970816, *2 (D. Kan. July 20, 2011), the plaintiff claimed in part that the defendant violated the FDCPA by obtaining a state court judgment against her although it was not properly licensed under state law to collect on loans.
Summary of this case from Love v. Southlaw, P.C.Opinion
Case No. 10-CV-02610-EFM/JPO.
July 20, 2011
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Ramona Curnal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated originally filed suit in Wyandotte County District Court. Thereafter, Defendant removed the case pursuant to a federal question and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). This matter is presently before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 9). For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and denies as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff's current action stems from Defendant's prior judgment against Plaintiff in a separate action in state court. The prior judgment was entered against Plaintiff when Defendant, a collection agency, purchased Plaintiff's account and filed a limited action lawsuit in state court to collect judgment. The state court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on December 30, 2008, awarding defendant $1,205.22. Defendant subsequently garnished Plaintiff's wages and ultimately filed a satisfaction of judgment in state court on June 6, 2010. Four months later, on October 8, 2010, Plaintiff filed this action to recover the judgment rendered against her, arguing that Defendant collected from her without proper licensing.
A supervised lending license is required under the Kansas Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to collect on debts with credit rates in excess of 12% per annum. The defendant has not claimed that it had a license or that it collected on debts with interest rates that did not exceed 12%. Plaintiff alleges wage garnishments issued by the state court were wrongful and requests that all moneys wrongfully taken by reason of the state court judgments be returned to the court for distribution to the class members.
After Plaintiff filed the state court petition in Wyandotte County, the Defendant filed its Notice of Removal to this Court on November 10, 2010. Defendant claimed this Court has original jurisdiction because the Plaintiff's original state court petition created: (1) diversity jurisdiction meeting CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy requirement, and (2) a federal question by the plaintiff's reference to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Plaintiff filed its Motion to Remand, asserting this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because: (1) the defendant has not met its burden showing the amount in controversy exceeds either $75,000 per named plaintiff or $5 million cumulatively, (2) there is no federal question, and (3) the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine prohibits this Court's jurisdiction. Defendant separately seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.
15 U.S.C. § 1992 (2006).
Plaintiff's state court petition alleges LVNV violated the Kansas Uniform Consumer Credit Code K.S.A. § 16a-1-301 and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act 15 U.S.C. § 1992. The Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint removed the reference to the FDCPA.
II. Legal Standards
III. Analysis
First Nat'l Bank Trust v. Nicholas, 768 F. Supp. 788, 790 (D. Kan. 1991).
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (2006).
Laughlin v. Kmart Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995).
Fajen v. Found. Reserve Ins. Co., 683 F.2d 331, 333 (10th Cir. 1982).
Laughlin, 50 F.3d at 873.
§ 1447(c).
1. Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits a lower federal court from considering both claims actually decided by a state court and claims inextricably intertwined with a prior state-court judgment. "A claim is inextricably intertwined if the state-court judgment caused, actually and proximately, the injury for which the federal court plaintiff seeks redress."Plaintiff claims that Defendant was not properly licensed under state law to collect on loans, and thus all of Defendant's collection activities were improper. These claims are inextricably intertwined with the prior state action in which Defendant collected on a loan from Plaintiff. The relief requested by Plaintiff would require this court to undermine the state court judgment in the loan collection action. Therefore, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies and this court must remand.
IT IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (Doc. 9) is hereby GRANTED. IT IF FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 19th day of July, 2011.