Britton v. MARCUS, ERRICO, EMMER & BROOKS, P.C.
1:18-cv-11288
D. Mass.Jul 6, 2023Background
- Plaintiffs Randy and Carolyn Britton sued Marcus, Errico, Emmer & Brooks, P.C. (MEEB) and two lawyers after losing in state court to their homeowners association over unpaid parking fees, alleging RICO and FDCPA violations.
- Early pleadings: court dismissed RICO and G.L. c. 93A claims and found most FDCPA claims time-barred, leaving three FDCPA claims for discovery and adjudication.
- Discovery was contentious; the court denied multiple Britton motions to compel and criticized their overbroad third-party subpoenas and failure to answer basic factual questions.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the three remaining FDCPA claims; the court granted summary judgment as to the November 2017 letter (finding MEEB was not a "debt collector" for FDCPA purposes) and denied the motion as to two other claims.
- Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration based primarily on newly produced emails between Korde & Associates and MEEB that they say show MEEB solicited payment; defendants countered the emails were unauthenticated and not shown to be newly available.
- The court denied reconsideration: plaintiffs failed to show the evidence could not have been obtained earlier, the emails did not undermine the court's application of Obduskey, and many arguments merely rehashed prior positions or sought relief barred by Rooker-Feldman.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MEEB was a "debt collector" under the FDCPA for the November 2017 letter | Britton: newly discovered Korde emails show MEEB asked for payment and thus was engaged in primary-purpose debt collection | MEEB: activities were lien-enforcement, not FDCPA debt collection; emails do not show otherwise | Court: MEEB was not a debt collector for that letter; summary judgment as to that claim affirmed |
| Whether Korde emails constitute "newly discovered evidence" warranting reconsideration | Britton: emails are newly discovered and material to debt-collector status | MEEB: emails are unauthenticated and plaintiffs fail to show they could not have obtained them earlier | Court: plaintiffs failed to show diligence or that evidence was previously unavailable; reconsideration denied |
| Whether Obduskey controls characterization of law firm activity | Britton: MEEB's conduct differed from Obduskey’s lien-enforcement activities | MEEB: Obduskey governs and excludes pure lien enforcement from FDCPA "debt collector" status | Court: Obduskey applies where defendant was enforcing a lien as required by state law; no manifest error of law found |
| Whether plaintiffs may relitigate the underlying state-court judgment or raise previously rejected arguments on reconsideration | Britton: challenges propriety of original debt and seeks broader relief (e.g., void state judgment) | MEEB: such relief is beyond the court’s power and barred by Rooker-Feldman; arguments were previously presented | Court: plaintiffs cannot relitigate state-court judgment in federal court; repeating prior arguments is improper on reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharms., LLC, 521 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008) (standard for motions for reconsideration)
- Palmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2006) (motions for reconsideration are extraordinary and used sparingly)
- Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, 139 S. Ct. 1029 (2019) (law firms enforcing security interests in foreclosure are not general-purpose FDCPA debt collectors)
- City of Miami Firefighters’ and Police Officers’ Ret. Tr. v. CVS Health Corp., 46 F.4th 22 (1st Cir. 2022) (standard for newly discovered evidence on reconsideration requires reasonable diligence)
- Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Diaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (a party may not repackage arguments already made on summary judgment in a motion for reconsideration)
- Klimowicz v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 907 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2018) (Rooker-Feldman bars federal review of state-court judgments)