Gunn v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
1:15-cv-00810
D. Del.Mar 18, 2016Background
- Plaintiff La Mar Gunn (pro se) sued Specialized Loan Servicing LLC (SLS) and John Charles Beggins under the FDCPA, alleging false collection communications, abusive calls, and derogatory credit reporting related to a mortgage serviced by Ocwen.
- Complaint alleges SLS represented itself as servicer, reported negative information to credit agencies, and harmed Gunn’s credit and business; alleges violations of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692d, 1692e, 1692e(10), and 1692f.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6); they later withdrew 12(b)(4) and (5).
- Court found plaintiff’s pleadings vague and conclusory: no dates, few factual details about calls or communications, and no competent evidence establishing contacts by Beggins in Delaware.
- Court noted that mortgage servicers may be exempt from the FDCPA unless they acquired the debt for collection; whether SLS is a “debt collector” depends on facts not pled.
- Court dismissed Beggins for lack of personal jurisdiction and dismissed FDCPA claims for failure to state a claim, but granted leave to amend (and ordered compliance with local rules for any amended pleading).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction over Beggins | Beggins is alleged as a collector employed by SLS (complaint silent on contacts) | Beggins resides in Colorado and has no contacts with Delaware or with Gunn’s loan | Dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction; plaintiff failed to meet burden to show contacts |
| FDCPA — pleading sufficiency | Gunn alleges misrepresentations, harassing calls, unlawful communications, and defamatory credit reporting; SLS identified as a "debt collector" in an exhibit | Allegations are vague/conclusory, lack dates and specifics, and may describe a loan servicer (not a debt collector) | FDCPA claims dismissed for failure to state a claim, but dismissal without prejudice and with leave to amend |
| Whether SLS is a "debt collector" under FDCPA | Gunn points to document where SLS self-identifies as a debt collector and asserts collection activity | Defendants argue SLS is a loan servicer (statutorily and doctrinally often excluded) and facts do not establish debt-collector status | Court: unresolved on pleadings; status depends on facts (e.g., whether debt was in default when acquired); plaintiff may try to plead facts in amended complaint |
| Leave to amend / compliance with local rules | Gunn sought leave to amend and submitted a proposed pleading (D.I. 17) | Defendants opposed; court found the filing noncompliant with D. Del. LR 15.1(b) formatting requirements | Court granted leave to amend but instructed plaintiff to file a proper amended complaint complying with local rules |
Key Cases Cited
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (Due process minimum contacts test)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (court must identify conclusory allegations and assess plausibility)
- Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (FDCPA covers persons who regularly collect debts)
- Pollice v. National Tax Funding, L.P., 225 F.3d 379 (creditors generally not subject to FDCPA)
- Provident Nat'l Bank v. California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 819 F.2d 434 (plaintiff bears burden to establish personal jurisdiction with reasonable particularity)
- Time Share Vacation Club v. Atlantic Resorts, Ltd., 735 F.2d 61 (methods to introduce jurisdictional facts)
- F.T.C. v. Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d 159 (distinction when a purchaser of debt is a debt collector vs. purchaser for investment)