At the very least, you have to hand it to this guy for being a good son. A District Court judge in Michigan has dismissed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act lawsuit filed against 14 different defendants, ruling that the 150-page complaint filed by a man on behalf of his 88-year-old mother who suffers from dementia, ruling that even at that length the complaint failed to state “any viable claim.”
The background: The plaintiff filed the case as “next friend” for his mother, alleging that the defendants had allegedly taken advantage of her diminished capacity. He claimed she suffered from dementia, struggled to manage her finances, and had allegedly been targeted with an assortment of loans, debt collection efforts, and legal actions. The complaint also referenced collection activity in Texas justice court, a nonsuit filed in a separate case, and a bank statement showing a payment to a law firm.
- Beyond those points, however, the court noted that roughly 140 of the complaint’s pages consisted of citations to statutes, rules, and generalized information about dementia and elder financial abuse, with very few factual allegations tied to any specific defendant.
- The plaintiff accused the defendants of fraud and of trying to collect time-barred debts, but offered “no effort whatsoever” to connect the allegations to the elements of a legal claim or to the conduct of any particular party.
- The court originally dismissed the case, but re-opened it after learning the son had made a good faith attempt to file objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendations, “only to be foiled by his confusion with the electronic filing system,” according to the ruling.
The ruling: Because the plaintiff was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint for merit. It found none. Even applying the more forgiving standard used for pro se litigants, Judge David M. Lawson of the District Court for the Easter District of Michigan said the filing failed because it was “unwieldy and unmanageable” and lacked the necessary factual detail to survive review.
- Judge Lawson agreed with the magistrate judge’s assessment that even under the plaintiff’s preferred theory the complaint did not plausibly allege violations of the FDCPA’s false or misleading representation provisions or its debt validation requirements. The court emphasized that the complaint simply recited long lists of statutes and accusations without supplying the facts needed to state a claim, writing that the plaintiff “does not explain what each defendant did” and that most were never mentioned again after being listed in the caption.
- The court also rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to invoke “fraud on the court”, noting that such claims require extraordinary misconduct like bribery or tampering and none was alleged. And to the extent the plaintiff sought to overturn prior Texas state court rulings, the court found the claims barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits federal courts from acting as appellate reviewers of state court decisions.
- In a line that will resonate with compliance professionals, Judge Lawson wrote: “… accepting as true the allegations about the dementia and fraud schemes does not suffice to establish a legal claim.”
- While acknowledging the plaintiff’s “commendable” concern for his mother, the court concluded that the complaint “fails to state any viable claim on which the Court can grant relief” and dismissed the case with prejudice.
