Caldwell v. Redstone Federal Credit Union
2:15-cv-01923
N.D. Ala.Jan 2, 2018Background
- Plaintiffs (the Caldwells and six additional named plaintiffs) each obtained Chapter 7 discharges of debts owed to Redstone and/or collection efforts by the Law Office of C. Howard Grisham.
- The Caldwells earlier alleged Redstone revived a pre‑bankruptcy judgment and recorded it after their discharge; the other six "New Plaintiffs" alleged only that Defendants attempted or continue to attempt collection after discharge.
- Plaintiffs brought claims for contempt of the bankruptcy discharge injunction and for violations of the FDCPA (FDCPA claim asserted only against Grisham).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for a more definite statement as to the New Plaintiffs' claims.
- The magistrate judge found the Caldwells' factual allegation about the revived judgment sufficient, but the New Plaintiffs' allegations were conclusory and lacked specific facts about what collection acts occurred.
- Court denied the motions to dismiss but granted the motions for a more definite statement and ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint identifying factual bases for each New Plaintiff's post‑discharge collection allegations by January 16, 2018.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim for contempt of discharge | Allegations that Defendants "attempted and/or continue to attempt" collection after discharge are sufficient to raise a reasonable inference of liability | Allegations are conclusory; complaint fails to identify specific acts showing violation of the discharge injunction | Dismissal denied but pleading insufficient; Plaintiffs ordered to amend with specific facts |
| Whether New Plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to state an FDCPA claim against Grisham | General class allegations and categories of collection conduct (e.g., revival of judgments, writs, inaccurate credit reporting) adequately plead prohibited acts | Pleading lacks the required particularity under Rule 8 and, where applicable, Rule 9(b); does not reasonably apprise defendants of the challenged communications/acts | Dismissal denied but FDCPA allegations as to New Plaintiffs are deficient; court permits amendment to add specifics |
| Whether motions should be struck for noncompliance with the court's initial order (designation and font size) | Motions violated the initial order and should be stricken | Motions were effectively opposed and in required 14‑point type per Defendants' representations | Court declined to strike motions; found no material noncompliance |
| Whether joinder defect under Rule 20(a) independently warrants dismissal of New Plaintiffs (raised briefly by Redstone) | N/A | Without factual support, New Plaintiffs cannot satisfy joinder requirements | Argument waived/undeveloped; court did not dismiss on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleading requires more than conclusions)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaints must contain factual allegations raising a claim above speculation)
- In re McLean, 794 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir.) (elements to prove contempt of discharge injunction: awareness and intent)
- Buckentin v. SunTrust Mortgage Corp., 928 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (N.D. Ala.) (elements of an FDCPA claim)
- Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir.) (on a motion to dismiss court accepts complaint facts as true)