Frazier v. Matrix Acquisitions, LLC, 873 F. Supp. 2d 897

Matrix Acquisitions sued Edra Frazier in state court to collect a debt; a default judgment was entered against Frazier in 2010.
Frazier subsequently filed this FDCPA/OCSPA action in state court (2011) alleging time-bar and venue deficiencies in the underlying action.
Defendants removed the case to federal court; the court raised, and the parties briefed, whether the action collaterally attacked a state court judgment or was barred by res judicata.
Counts I and II claim time-bar issues in the underlying action violated the FDCPA/OCSPA; Count III alleges improper venue under the FDCPA (and OCSPA).
The court held Counts I and II barred by claim preclusion due to a final default judgment and privity with associated parties; Count III survives summary-judgment review.
The court denied summary judgment on Count III, finding a genuine issue of material fact whether Frazier signed a contract in Summit County or resided there when the underlying action commenced.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Counts I and II are barred by res judicata	Frazier argues the time-bar/FDCPA claims survive as non-attack on final judgment.	Defendants contend privity and four-element test show claim preclusion bars Counts I and II.	Counts I and II barred by claim preclusion
Whether Count III is barred by res judicata or collateral attack	Frazier contends venue issue properly pursued and not a collateral attack on the judgment.	Venue issue not within the nucleus of the prior action; collateral attack not shown.	Count III not barred; requires factual dispute to determine proper venue
Whether there is a genuine issue of material fact about FDCPA venue under 15 U.S.C. § 1692i(a)	Affidavits show no contract signed and residence in Portage County; Summit County venue not proper.	Defendants rely on Summit County address and contract-signing; no contract produced.	Issue of fact exists; Count III denied at summary judgment

Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court 1984) (federal courts give state judgments the same preclusive effect as state law)
Abbott v. Michigan, 474 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2007) (claim preclusion analysis follows state law of the rendering state)
Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (Ohio 1995) (four-element test for Ohio claim preclusion; nucleus of operative facts)
Hapgood v. City of Warren, 127 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 1997) (four elements of claim preclusion in the Sixth Circuit)
Foster v. D.B.S. Collection Agency, 463 F. Supp. 2d 783 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (privity and scope considerations in claim preclusion for FDCPA claims)
Brown v. Dayton, 89 Ohio St.3d 245 (Ohio 2000) (privity concept in res judicata; close relationship suffices)
Ohio Pyro, Inc. v. Ohio Dep’t of Commerce, 115 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 2007) (final judgments are final; collateral attacks disfavored)
Rogers v. Whitehall, 25 Ohio St.3d 67 (Ohio 1986) (collateral attack principles in Ohio law)
ABS Industries, Inc. ex rel. ABS Litigation Trust v. Fifth Third Bank, 333 F. App’x 994 (6th Cir. 2009) (privity and related concepts for res judicata in financial disputes)
Mitchell v. Chapman, 343 F.3d 811 (6th Cir. 2003) (scope of claims that could have been litigated and rule of differing capacities discussed)