Smith v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, 3:17-cv-03028

Plaintiff Kandis Smith obtained a credit card in 2008, defaulted, and the account was charged off in December 2008; creditor later sold the debt to Cavalry SPV I, LLC (Cavalry).
On September 25, 2015, an Affidavit of Claim by Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC (CPS) was attached to a Carroll County state-court collection complaint filed July 7, 2016; attorney Rachel Kuperman of Lloyd & McDaniel, PLC represented Cavalry.
After service, Smith spoke with Kuperman, who allegedly demanded payments and sought SSN/checking-account information; Smith retained counsel, who moved to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds.
The state-court action was dismissed on August 19, 2016; Smith then filed this federal suit alleging violations of the FDCPA and AFDCPA and state torts: abuse of process and malicious prosecution.
Defendants moved under Rule 12(c) to dismiss the abuse-of-process and malicious-prosecution claims as insufficiently pleaded; Kuperman and her firm additionally asserted Arkansas attorney-immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-310.
The Court granted the motion, dismissing Counts 3 and 4 without prejudice for failure to plead sufficient facts supporting the elements of those torts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of abuse-of-process claim	Smith alleges process was perverted and defendants engaged in willful acts after issuance	Defendants say complaint only recites elements, lacks facts showing an ulterior purpose or improper post-issuance acts	Dismissed — pleadings lack factual allegations of an ulterior purpose or willful improper acts; dismissal without prejudice
Sufficiency of malicious-prosecution claim	Smith alleges suit was baseless and brought with improper motive	Defendants argue complaint fails to allege absence of probable cause or malice beyond attempt to collect a debt	Dismissed — complaint fails to allege absence of probable cause or malice beyond debt collection; dismissal without prejudice
Attorney immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-310 (as argued)	Smith contends immunity inapplicable if attorney committed intentional torts/fraud	Defendants assert statutory immunity for attorneys who file suits to collect debts	Court did not fully resolve immunity because claims were dismissed on pleading grounds; opinion notes statutory immunity protects attorneys who sue solely to collect debts

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim to relief)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Gibson v. Regions Fin. Corp., 557 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2009) (elements of abuse of process under Arkansas law)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Binns, 341 Ark. 157 (2000) (abuse of process distinguished from malicious prosecution)
McMullen v. McHughes, 2015 Ark. 15 (elements of malicious prosecution under Arkansas law)
Cordes v. Outdoor Living Center, Inc., 301 Ark. 26 (probable cause standard discussion)