McCrobie v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC
664 F. App'x 81
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Christopher McCrobie sued Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC and debt‑collectors Houslanger & Associates, PLLC and Todd Houslanger, alleging FDCPA violations arising from efforts to collect a state‑court default judgment (including issuance of an income execution).
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the Rooker‑Feldman doctrine and ruled on a statute‑of‑limitations defense.
- Defendants argued (inter alia) that McCrobie’s claims were barred by Rooker‑Feldman and that accrual occurred at the time of the underlying default judgment (2007).
- McCrobie contended his FDCPA claims accrued later (when the income execution was issued in 2014) and do not ask the federal court to overturn the state judgment. He also argued defendants waived any procedural waiver claim.
- The Second Circuit held Rooker‑Feldman did not bar the suit, affirmed the district court’s statute‑of‑limitations ruling, and remanded for further proceedings on other issues the district court did not reach.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellant waived appellate arguments by not opposing the motion to dismiss in district court | McCrobie: arguments were raised in motion to amend and reply; not waived | Defendants: failure to oppose motion to dismiss in district court waives issues on appeal | Court: plaintiff did not waive these arguments; defendants offered no controlling authority to the contrary |
| Whether Rooker‑Feldman bars federal jurisdiction over FDCPA claims arising from post‑judgment collection conduct | McCrobie: claims challenge defendants’ collection conduct, not the validity of the state judgment; seeks damages under FDCPA | Defendants: plaintiff is a state‑court loser asking federal court to review/state judgment indirectly; Rooker‑Feldman applies | Court: Rooker‑Feldman does not apply because plaintiff’s FDCPA claims challenge collection conduct and do not invite review/undoing of the state court judgment |
| When FDCPA claims accrued for statute‑of‑limitations purposes | McCrobie: accrual when income execution issued (Aug 28, 2014); suit filed Jan 6, 2015 — timely | Defendants: accrual no later than entry of default judgment (Mar 8, 2007); suit time‑barred | Court: accrual cannot precede the alleged violation; earliest accrual Aug 28, 2014; statute‑of‑limitations ruling by district court affirmed |
| Whether the court should reach other substantive and procedural defenses not addressed by district court | McCrobie: invites district court to consider other arguments on remand | Defendants: urge affirmance and forfeiture arguments | Court: decline to decide issues raised but not reached below; remand for district court to address them in first instance |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoblock v. Albany Cty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir.) (Rooker‑Feldman framework)
- Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Assocs. LLC, 780 F.3d 70 (2d Cir.) (statement of Rooker‑Feldman elements)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S.) (Rooker‑Feldman principle)
- Fulton v. Goord, 591 F.3d 37 (2d Cir.) (district court should address arguments in the first instance)
- Benzemann v. Citibank N.A., 806 F.3d 98 (2d Cir.) (FDCPA accrual requires complete cause of action and notice)
- Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Quicken Loans Inc., 810 F.3d 861 (2d Cir.) (de novo review of statute‑of‑limitations dismissal)
- Farricielli v. Holbrook, 215 F.3d 241 (2d Cir.) (procedural practice about addressing arguments in first instance)