Suzette Wood v. Midland Funding
698 F. App'x 260
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are Michigan consumer-debt defendants whose cases were subject to alternative service by publication after defendants (Midland Funding, Weltman) reported unsuccessful personal service.
- Defendants obtained state-court orders authorizing publication after filing verified motions stating service "cannot reasonably be made" under MCR 2.105; plaintiffs allege defendants never attempted service by registered or certified mail as an alternative under MCR 2.105(A).
- Newspapers published court-ordered notices identifying plaintiffs, debt amounts, original creditors, and current holders; plaintiffs sued under the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. § 1692e and § 1692d) for false statements and harassment, and for a state-law false return claim.
- The district court dismissed counts one (false/misleading statements) and two (harassment) — count one on Rooker-Feldman abstention and count two for failure to state a claim; count three was dismissed without prejudice.
- The Sixth Circuit held Rooker-Feldman did not bar the federal suit because plaintiffs challenge pre-judgment acts (the motions/verifications) and seek forward-looking relief, but affirmed dismissal on the merits: plaintiffs failed to plead actionable falsity under § 1692e or harassing conduct under § 1692d.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of FDCPA claims attacking motions for alternative service | Wood: claims arise from defendants' pre-judgment conduct (false motions), not the state-court judgment; relief sought is prospective, not invalidation of the order | Defendants: plaintiffs effectively attack and seek to undermine state-court orders | Court: Rooker–Feldman does not apply; plaintiffs challenge independent, antecedent acts and seek forward-looking relief |
| Whether allegations that defendants failed to attempt certified/registered mail render motions for alternative service false under § 1692e | Wood: defendants misrepresented compliance with MCR 2.105 by not attempting mail service, so statements were false/misleading | Defendants: verifications that personal service attempts occurred and that service "cannot reasonably be made" were truthful and consistent with then-uncertain Michigan law | Court: dismissal affirmed — plaintiffs pleaded only a disputed legal interpretation of MCR 2.105, not objectively false statements plausibly showing FDCPA § 1692e liability |
| Whether publication of court-ordered notices showing debt details is harassment under § 1692d | Wood: publication of names and debt details shamed plaintiffs and was an abusive collection tactic; defendants could have published less detail | Defendants: publication complied with valid court orders and merely informed debtors of obligations; not harassing under FDCPA | Court: dismissal affirmed — compliance with court order and publication as authorized does not, as pleaded, amount to per se harassing or abusive conduct under § 1692d |
| Whether plaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to survive Rule 12(b)(6) | Wood: facts and verifications show objective falsity and publication intended to coerce payment; discovery could corroborate | Defendants: pleadings lack nonconclusory, authoritative support that statements were false or harassing | Court: plaintiffs failed to allege nonconclusory facts showing actionable falsity or natural-consequence harassment; Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Braverman, 451 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2006) (Rooker–Feldman and independent-source inquiry)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006) (Rooker–Feldman bars lower federal appellate review of final state judgments)
- Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (origin of Rooker doctrine)
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits on federal courts reviewing state-court adjudications)
- Berry v. Schmitt, 688 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2012) (forward-looking relief independent of state judgment not barred by Rooker–Feldman)
- Currier v. First Resolution Inv. Corp., 762 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2014) (FDCPA protects against abusive practices while presuming reasonable-debtor understanding)
- Harvey v. Great Seneca Fin. Corp., 453 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2006) (limits on treating court-filed collection efforts as FDCPA abuse)
- Jeter v. Credit Bureau, 760 F.2d 1168 (11th Cir. 1985) (examples of when publication/notice is not a § 1692d violation)
- Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 691 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. 2012) (due process requires notice sufficient to apprise parties of pending actions)