Keller v. Kerwin
3:24-cv-05042
W.D. Mo.Mar 11, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Keller entered into a financing contract with Westlake Financial Services for the purchase of a vehicle in Missouri.
- Keller alleges he made consistent payments until facing financial hardship, after which he attempted to settle the loan via a negotiable instrument, which Westlake refused.
- Westlake repossessed the vehicle; Keller subsequently sued for breach of contract, FDCPA violations, and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) violations.
- Westlake moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing it is not a 'debt collector' under the FDCPA and that no federal jurisdiction exists without a federal claim.
- Keller, proceeding pro se, moved to strike Westlake's reply brief, arguing it was improper and referenced outside materials.
- The court previously dismissed individual defendant Paul Kerwin, leaving Westlake as the sole defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Keller's Argument | Westlake's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Westlake a 'debt collector' under FDCPA? | Westlake may qualify as a debt collector; federal question jurisdiction exists. | Westlake is collecting its own debt, not a third-party debt, thus not a debt collector under FDCPA. | Westlake is not a debt collector; FDCPA claim dismissed. |
| Does the court retain federal jurisdiction after FDCPA dismissal? | Remaining claims may give rise to federal claims regarding federally regulated transactions. | Only federal claim was FDCPA; remaining are state claims; court should decline supplemental jurisdiction. | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction; state law claims dismissed without prejudice. |
| Should Defendant's reply brief be stricken? | Reply brief is immaterial, redundant, and references improper outside materials. | Reply is not a 'pleading' under FRCP; motion to strike is improper. | Motion to strike denied as reply is not a pleading under rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards and plausibility requirement)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (supplemental jurisdiction standards)