El Bey v. Focus Receivables Management, LLC
4:14-cv-00825
W.D. Mo.Dec 18, 2014Background
- Plaintiff Oaxaco El Bey, pro se, sued Focus Receivables Management, LLC in small claims, asserting FCRA and MMPA claims for an unauthorized credit report inquiry.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court and moved for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment; plaintiff moved to amend.
- Court directed a Rule 16 scheduling conference and a Joint Proposed Scheduling Order by Dec. 12, which did not occur.
- Court grants leave to amend the complaint and gives plaintiff 14 days to file an amended complaint; discovery has not commenced.
- Court finds MMPA requires a transaction; plaintiff alleges no transaction, so MMPA claim dismissal is warranted.
- Court denies summary-judgment on the FCRA claim, allowing discovery, and addresses punitive damages pleadings; scheduling deadline extended to Jan. 20, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MMPA claim survives given lack of transaction | El Bey asserts no transaction with defendant. | MMPA requires a sale/advertisement transaction; no transaction exists. | MMPA claim dismissed. |
| Whether there is a permissible purpose for credit inquiry without discovery | Discovery should determine permissible purpose. | Affidavit supports permissible purpose; discovery unnecessary. | Judgment on the pleadings/summary judgment denied; discovery allowed. |
| Whether punitive damages are adequately pleaded | Pro se pleadings should suffice to show recklessness. | Insufficient facts alleged regarding state of mind. | Punitive-damages pleading deemed adequate. |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Should be allowed to amend for proper relief. | Unclear proposed amendment; opposes late amendment. | Leave to amend granted; plaintiff has 14 days to file amended complaint. |
| Whether scheduling deadline should be extended | Not specified. | Timely scheduling required; not met. | Deadline extended to Jan. 20, 2015. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard for plausibility under Iqbal and Twombly)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facilitates plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (pro se pleadings to be liberally construed)
- Stringer v. St. James R-1 School Dist., 446 F.3d 799 (8th Cir. 2006) (liberal construction of pro se complaints)
- Conway v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 438 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. 2014) (Mo. Supreme Court on MMPA transactions requirement)
- Owen v. General Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2008) (analysis of FCRA permissible purpose context)