Mounia Elyazidi v. SunTrust Bank
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3482
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Appellant overdrew her SunTrust account with a nearly $9,800 check despite a low balance.
- SunTrust hired MR&A to file a Virginia debt-collection action using a warrant in debt and affidavits.
- The Virginia court awarded judgment for debts, costs, and attorney’s fees (SunTrust sought 25% of the debt).
- MR&A’s June 2012 affidavit claimed an anticipated 25% fee and future hours to satisfy execution; the Virginia court awarded $2,372.71.
- Appellant filed Maryland state-law claims (MCDCA and MCPA) and FDCPA claims against SunTrust and MR&A in Maryland federal court, which dismissed them for failure to state a claim.
- Court addressed Rooker-Feldman jurisdiction and held the MD court claims did not collide with the Virginia judgment; affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts III–IV state a valid FDCPA claim. | Elyazidi claims the 25% fee prayer was false. | Appellees claim the fee request was within contract and Virginia procedure. | Counts III–IV fail as a matter of law. |
| Whether Rooker-Feldman barred Counts III–IV. | Claims challenge pre-trial representations. | Claims arise independently of Virginia judgment. | Rooker-Feldman did not bar federal review. |
| Whether MD statutes apply extraterritorially to Virginia conduct. | MD law governs out-of-state conduct affecting MD residents. | Activity occurred in Virginia; extraterritoriality not shown. | Counts I–II fail; extraterritorial application rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365 (4th Cir. 2012) (FDCPA standard for plausibility; materiality, least sophisticated consumer)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2005) (limits on federal jurisdiction in state-court judgments)
- Davani v. Va. Dep’t of Transp., 434 F.3d 712 (4th Cir. 2006) (Rooker-Feldman scope in examining judgments)
- Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 485 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2007) (FDCPA liability for attorneys who act as debt collectors)
- Powell v. Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, 2014 WL 7191354 (4th Cir. 2014) (materiality and least sophisticated consumer standard)
- Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1995) (FDCPA applicability to attorney-debt collectors)
- Friedman’s, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2002) (FDCPA review principles; standard of review)
- United States v. Nat’l Fin. Servs., Inc., 98 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 1996) (reasonableness in evaluating debt-collection communications)
- Lee v. Mulford, 611 S.E.2d 349 (Va. 2005) (Virginia fee-recovery reasonableness standard)