The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hochberg, District Judge:
NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED
Plaintiff, Nancy Krrywda, brings this action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act by defendant, Pressler & Pressler, L.L.P. ("Pressler"). Plaintiff alleges that after obtaining a judgment and writ of execution, Pressler "skips its obligation to conduct adequate post-judgment asset discovery" and instead directs law enforcement personnel to ascertain what assets are available to satisfy the judgment. See Plaintiff's Opposition, Docket # 23, at 5. Pressler moves to dismiss plaintiff's claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In support of its motion, Pressler submitted state court and public documentation, the authenticity of which plaintiff does not dispute, demonstrating that Pressler in fact conducted extensive post-judgment discovery regarding plaintiff's assets, and had to obtain more than one court order directing plaintiff to appear for post-judgment discovery proceedings, which plaintiff disregarded, culminating in the issuance of a bench warrant for the arrest of plaintiff for failure to comply with post-judgment discovery orders.
Plaintiff is a repeat debtor, who owes money as a result of defaulting on various consumer debts and credit cards. Pressler has obtained three separate judgments against plaintiff and two judgments against plaintiff's husband. Certification of Mitchell L. Williamson, Docket # 21-3, ¶¶ 1, 5 ("Williamson Cert."). After obtaining these judgments, Pressler conducted extensive post-judgment discovery regarding the assets of plaintiff and her husband. Pressler sent three different information subpoenas to plaintiff and two different information subpoenas to plaintiff's husband pursuant to N.J. Ct. R. 6:7-2(b). Williamson Cert. ¶¶ 9, 20, 24, 25-27, 31, Exs. B, H, M, Q. In addition, Pressler obtained a Court Order of Discovery seeking information regarding the "Joseph Dubay Krrywda Trust" of which plaintiff is the trustee. Id. ¶ 33-34, Ex. S.
Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court Order of Discovery and Pressler subsequently obtained a Court Order to Enforce Litigant's Rights directed to plaintiff. Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court Order to Enforce Litigant's Rights and Pressler obtained a Court Issued Warrant for plaintiff's arrest. Id. ¶¶ 39-40, Ex. T, Ex. U. Plaintiff was arrested pursuant to the warrant, and after she complained of shortness of breath and chest pains, the court directed that she be taken to the local hospital and issued an order directing plaintiff to appear before the court on a later date. Id. ¶ 39, Ex. W. Plaintiff did not appear as directed. Her husband appeared and he presented a certification and trust documents relating to the trust. Id. ¶ 44-45, Exs. X, Y. In essence, plaintiff defaults on her bills, and then claims to have no assets because she and her husband have put their assets into a revocable trust for their son.
The trust documents indicate that plaintiff is the trustee of the "Joseph Dubay Krrywda Trust," which is a revocable trust on behalf of plaintiff's son. Id. Ex. X. The trust assets include the residence of plaintiff and her family. Id. The trust was originally scheduled to terminate when plaintiff's son reached the age of 25 in 2009. However, it was amended in February 2009 to terminate instead upon his 39th birthday. Id. At the direction of Pressler, the Ocean County Sheriff has twice attempted to levy on plaintiff's personal property and once attempted to levy upon the personal property and motor vehicle of plaintiff's husband. Id. ¶¶ 16, 21-22, 30, Exs. E, I, K, P. In response to the attempted levies, plaintiff and her husband have refused to submit to proper post-judgment discovery, instead baselessly expressing outrage that their pat assertion that they have "no assets" (because their residence and all of its furnishings and contents are held in trust for their son, and that the vehicle sought to be levied belongs to plaintiff's son) is not sufficient to avoid answering questions about how they came to have no assets.
In short, this case involves a lengthy record of post-judgment discovery attempts, which reflects repeated, persistent, and contumacious non-compliance by plaintiff with court orders, culminating in the issuance of a warrant for the arrest of plaintiff.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "[S]tating . . . a claim requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest the required element. This does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage, but instead simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary element." Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotations omitted).
In evaluating a motion to dismiss, a court may consider the complaint, "matters of public record, and undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon those documents." Guo Hua Ke v. Holder, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10612, *4 (D.N.J. Feb. 3, 2011) (citing Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993)). Further, a court may "take judicial notice of another court's opinion -- not for the truth of the facts recited therein, but for the existence of the opinion." S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp., Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir. 1999). "Consistent with this limitation, [a court] may 'examine the decision to see if it contradicts the complaint's legal conclusions or factual claims.'" Banton v. Morton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17018, *12, n.2 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2011) (quoting S. Cross, 181 F.3d at 427).
Plaintiff alleges that Pressler has violated the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq., by engaging in collection methods in violation of New Jersey law. Plaintiff contends that after obtaining a judgment, a judgment creditor is obligated under New Jersey law to conduct appropriate post-judgment discovery before directing a sheriff to inventory and levy upon the debtor's assets and that Pressler failed to do so with respect to the judgments against plaintiff. See Spiegel, Inc. v. Taylor, 148 N.J. Super. 79 (Cty. Ct. 1977). Plaintiff's ...