Vantu v. Echo Recovery, LLC
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17372
N.D. Ohio2015Background
- Wanda Vantu alleges that in October 2013 Ronald Maddox attempted to repossess her ex-husband’s van while it was parked at her sister’s home and, during the encounter, pointed a semiautomatic pistol at her, threatened to shoot her, and physically battered her.
- Maddox was arrested, convicted of related crimes, and jailed for his conduct.
- Vantu sued Maddox and his employer/engager Echo Recovery under the FDCPA and Ohio law, alleging Maddox acted as Echo’s employee, agent, or contractor and that Echo controlled his repossession activities.
- Echo moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (arguing it is not a “debt collector”) and, alternatively, for failure to state an FDCPA claim, supported by an affidavit asserting Maddox was an independent contractor and that Echo’s primary business is not debt collection.
- The court treated Echo’s jurisdictional attack as improperly raising merits issues and declined to consider the affidavit at the Rule 12(b)(1) stage, then evaluated plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court concluded Vantu alleged a plausible §1692f(6) claim because (1) repossession conduct that breaches the peace strips any present right to possession, and (2) Vantu plausibly alleged Maddox acted for Echo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction: Does the complaint present a federal question under the FDCPA? | Vantu pleaded an FDCPA claim on the face of the complaint. | Echo says it is not a “debt collector” and submits an affidavit disputing allegations. | Court: Jurisdiction exists; Echo’s factual attack improperly raises merits and cannot be resolved on 12(b)(1) here. |
| FDCPA standing for security-interest enforcers: Can Echo be liable under §1692f(6)? | Vantu: Echo is an enforcer of security interests and violated §1692f(6) by breaching the peace during repossession. | Echo: Its primary business is not debt collection, so it is not a debt collector. | Court: Allegations plausibly state a §1692f(6) claim because repossession that breaches the peace negates present right to possession. |
| Relationship to repossessor: Was Maddox Echo’s employee/agent (v. independent contractor)? | Vantu alleged Maddox was Echo’s employee, agent, or contractor and received directions from Echo. | Echo contends the allegation is speculative and unsupported. | Court: Allegation is sufficiently pled on information and belief; not speculative at this stage. |
| Sufficiency of pleading under Rule 8/Iqbal/Twombly | Vantu: Complaint gives short, plain statement with factual allegations of gun threat, battering, and controllership. | Echo: Factual contradictions and absence of detailed proof mean claims are implausible. | Court: Complaint states a plausible claim; detailed proof not required at pleading stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (federal-question jurisdiction governed by well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320 (distinguishing facial vs. factual Rule 12(b)(1) attacks)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (failure to state a claim is a merits issue, not jurisdictional)
- Hrivnak v. NCO Portfolio Mgmt., Inc., 719 F.3d 564 (bad merits theory does not defeat federal jurisdiction)
- Montgomery v. Huntington Bank, 346 F.3d 693 (definition and limits of “debt collector” under FDCPA)
- Glazer v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 704 F.3d 453 (when security-interest enforcers can be treated as debt collectors for §1692f(6))
- Alexander v. Blackhawk Recovery & Investigation, L.L.C., 731 F.Supp.2d 674 (look to state repossession law to determine when repossessor lacks present right to possession)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)