United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
brings this action against Defendant for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15
U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. (ECF No. 1.)
the Court is Plaintiff Alexandria Kimble's May 22, 2017
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. (ECF No. 13.)
Defendant Ray Jamieson, P.C. filed a response on June 23,
2017. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff replied on July 7, 2017. (ECF
before the Court is Defendant's October 11, 2017 motion
to dismiss, or, in the alternative, motion to compel
arbitration. (ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff responded on November 8,
2017. (ECF No. 24.)
following reasons, Plaintiff's motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. Defendant's motion to dismiss, or, in the
alternative, motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED in part
and DENIED in part.
February 2, 2017, Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter
addressing a debt Plaintiff owed J.R.'s Auto Sales, Inc.
(Id. ¶ 22; Answer, ECF No. 11 ¶ 22
(admitted).) The letter stated, in relevant part, that:
The debt will be assumed to be valid unless you notify this
office or the creditor in writing of any dispute concerning
this debt or any portion thereof within thirty (30) days
after you receive this letter.
This office will provide you with the name and address of the
original creditor, if different from the current creditor, if
you request this in writing within 30 days.
If you do dispute this debt, then this office will provide
verification of the debt to you.
This is a communication from a debt collector. This is an
attempt to collect a debt. Any information obtained will be
used for that purpose.
(ECF No. 1-1.)
February 14, 2017, Defendant filed suit in state court
against Plaintiff on behalf of J.R.'s Auto Sales, Inc.
(ECF No. 1 ¶ 29; ECF No. 11 ¶ 29; ECF No. 1-2.)
March 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed her complaint in this court
against Defendant for violation of 15 U.S.C. §§
1692g(a)(3)-(4) and 1692e. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 35-47.)
Defendant filed its Answer on May 8, 2017. (ECF No. 11.)
22, 2017, Plaintiff filed her motion for partial judgment on
the pleadings. (ECF No. 13.) Defendant filed its response on
June 23, 2017. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff replied on July 7,
2017. (ECF No. 19.)
October 11, 2017, Defendant filed its motion to dismiss, or,
in the alternative, motion to compel arbitration. (ECF No.
23.) Plaintiff responded on November 8, 2017. (ECF No. 24.)
Jurisdiction & Choice of Law
Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal-law
claims. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, United States
district courts have original jurisdiction “of all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” The complaint alleges
that Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff
in violation of the FDCPA. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 2.) That claim
arises under the laws of the United States.
Standard of Review
Judgment on the Pleadings & Motion to Dismiss
the pleadings are closed -- but early enough not to delay
trial -- a party may move for judgment on the
pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The standard governing
a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) applies to a motion
for judgment on the pleadings. Warrior Sports, Inc. v.
Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 623 F.3d 281,
284 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing EEOC v. J.H. Routh Packing
Co., 246 F.3d 850, 851 (6th Cir. 1973)). “For
purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all
well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the
opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be
granted only if the moving party is nevertheless clearly
entitled to judgment.” JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.
Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007).
survive a plaintiff's Rule 12(c) motion, a
defendant's pleadings must contain sufficient facts
“to ‘state a [defense] that is plausible on its
face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Bare allegations without a factual
context do not create defenses that are plausible. Ctr.
for Bio- Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Napolitano, 648 F.3d
365, 374 (6th Cir. 2011). “The plausibility standard is
not akin to a ‘probability ...