306 F. Supp. 3d 756
W.D. Pa.2018Background
- In 2014 Plaintiff bought a Toyota Corolla financed by Capital One, which held a security interest; in 2016 Capital One (through Commonwealth Recovery’s agent, the “repo man”) repossessed the vehicle from Plaintiff’s driveway without a court order.
- Plaintiff and a passenger (Shyree) objected; Plaintiff repeatedly told the repo agent to leave private property and the passenger initially remained in the car.
- The repo agent summoned Pennsylvania State Police troopers (including Defs. Devlin and Morris); troopers allegedly assisted, threatened to break the window, order the passenger out, and directed Plaintiff to surrender the vehicle.
- Plaintiff amended her complaint asserting FDCPA and UCC claims (Counts I–II), conversion/trespass to chattels (Count III) and trespass (Count IV) against Capital One and Commonwealth Recovery, and § 1983 claims against state actors in official (Count V) and individual capacities (Count VI).
- Capital One and Commonwealth Recovery moved to dismiss Counts III–IV and punitive damages; Commonwealth Defendants moved to dismiss Counts V–VI.
- Court denied dismissal of Counts III–IV and punitive damages; denied dismissal of § 1983 individual-capacity claims against Troopers Devlin and Morris; dismissed § 1983 official-capacity claim against Col. Blocker for lack of standing and dismissed several defendants accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conversion / trespass to chattels (Count III) against Capital One & Commonwealth Recovery | Repo man deprived Plaintiff of possessory rights; assistance by police converted repossession into wrongful taking | Plaintiff lacks ownership/possession; Capital One’s security interest precludes conversion; repo man acted at police direction | Denied motion to dismiss: complaint plausibly alleges possession, deprivation, and breach of the peace that nullified repo privilege under § 9609, so conversion/trespass to chattels survive |
| Trespass (Count IV) against Capital One & Commonwealth Recovery | Repo agent remained on private property after being told to leave and enlisted police, exceeding any limited privilege to enter | Repo entry was lawful under § 9609 and occurred on driveway (less protected area); absence of no-trespass signage undermines claim | Denied motion to dismiss: allegations that agent stayed after being told to leave and that police assistance breached the peace plausibly state trespass |
| Punitive damages for Counts III–IV | Alleged intentional, willful, reckless conduct in repossession and trespass supports punitive damages | Only ordinary torts alleged; no facts showing willful, wanton, or malicious state of mind; actions were at police direction | Denied motion to dismiss punitive damages: facts could support inference of reckless/willful conduct, question for factfinder |
| § 1983 (individual capacity) against Troopers Devlin & Morris (Count VI) — Fourth/Fourteenth Amendment | Troopers affirmatively assisted repossession, threatened force, and directed surrender — seizure and denial of procedural due process | Troopers merely kept the peace and did not actively assist; no state action for constitutional liability | Denied motion to dismiss: allegations show affirmative assistance (facilitation, threats, direction) — state action and unreasonable seizure/procedural due process plausibly alleged; qualified immunity unavailable because law was clearly established |
| § 1983 (official capacity) against Col. Blocker — prospective injunctive relief (Count V) | Seeks injunctive relief to require PSP policies forbidding assistance in civil repossessions without court order | No standing to seek prospective relief; any future injury speculative | Granted dismissal with prejudice: Plaintiff lacks standing to obtain prospective injunctive relief (no real/immediate threat); amendment would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (framework for plausibility review of complaints)
- Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1992) (seizure occurs when there is meaningful interference with possessory interests)
- Harvey v. Plains Twp. Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 606 (3d Cir. 2011) (police cross line into state action when they move from neutrality to affirmative aid in private repossession)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (U.S. 1988) (§ 1983 requires state action and deprivation of constitutional right)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity two-pronged inquiry)