Leonardo v. MSW Capital, LLC, 0:16-cv-03845

Background

Leonardo incurred a $1,283.74 Credit One Bank credit-card debt that was charged off and assigned to MSW Capital; neither Credit One nor MSW sent periodic statements showing accrued interest after charge‑off.
Messerli & Kramer, on behalf of MSW, served Leonardo with a state‑court collection complaint (served Oct. 13, 2015) and later filed it in state court; the complaint sought the balance plus interest (23.90%) and attached a copy of a “Credit Agreement.”
Leonardo sued in federal court under the FDCPA (filed Nov. 7, 2016), alleging four misrepresentations in the state‑court complaint: (1) asserted interest that allegedl y was waived due to lack of periodic statements; (2) improper compound interest; (3) the attached agreement was not a true and correct copy; and (4) entitlement to attorney’s fees under the agreement.
Defendants moved to dismiss; they submitted state‑court filings and related exhibits with their motion, which the district court treated as public records and as documents necessarily embraced by the complaint.
The court concluded Leonardo was put on notice of the alleged FDCPA violations when served with the state‑court complaint on Oct. 13, 2015, and because he filed more than one year later, his FDCPA claims are time‑barred.
The court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhibits submitted with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion convert it to summary judgment	Leonardo argued conversion required because defendants submitted affidavits/exhibits outside the complaint	Defendants argued state‑court filings are public record and embraced by the complaint, so no conversion required	Court held the state‑court documents were public/embraced by the pleadings and did not convert the motion
Whether Leonardo’s FDCPA claims are time‑barred (statute of limitations)	Leonardo contended he should not be held liable for pre‑Nov. 8, 2015 conduct and sought to treat later filings as new violations	Defendants argued the violation occurred when Leonardo was served on Oct. 13, 2015, and the one‑year limitations period expired before suit	Court held the one‑year statute barred the claims because suit was filed more than one year after service
Whether reaffirmation of allegedly deceptive statements during litigation restarts limitations	Leonardo urged that later pleadings/continuing litigation created new violations or tolled limitations	Defendants argued continuing effects do not create new violations or restart the limitations period	Court held that continuing pleadings do not constitute new violations and do not restart the limitations period
Applicability of Boldon (equitable tolling/renewal theory)	Leonardo relied on Boldon to argue a later filing can trigger a new limitations period to prevent debt collectors from gaming the statute	Defendants distinguished Boldon because their state complaint was filed only 10 months after service (not 17), and Leonardo had two months to sue but waited	Court distinguished Boldon and rejected Leonardo’s attempt to pick the start date; Boldon was not controlling here

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading and dismissal standard)
Gomez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 676 F.3d 655 (8th Cir. 2012) (court accepts factual allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6))
McAdams v. McCord, 584 F.3d 1111 (8th Cir. 2009) (court need not credit legal conclusions)
Greenman v. Jessen, 787 F.3d 882 (8th Cir. 2015) (courts may consider public-record materials and documents embraced by the pleadings on a motion to dismiss)
Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988 (8th Cir. 2007) (no automatic conversion to summary judgment when parties submit outside materials)