Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clemons v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

July 25, 2019

ASHLEY CLEMONS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant.

          DANIEL ZEMEL ZEMEL LAW LLC On behalf of Plaintiff

          ELLEN BETH SILVERMAN MATTHEW BLAKE CORWIN HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP On behalf of Defendant

          OPINION

          NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

         This matter concerns claims by Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated parties, against a credit card account servicer for its efforts to collect on Plaintiff's credit card debt. Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendant to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's claims. For the reasons expressed below, Defendant's motion will be granted.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff, Ashley Clemons, claims that on April 4, 2018, Defendant, Midland Credit Management, Inc. (“MCM”), sent her a letter presenting the “current balance” of $367.01 for a personal credit card issued by Comenity Bank. The collection letter, which is attached as an exhibit to Plaintiff's complaint, provides:

         (Image Omitted)

         (Docket No. 1-2.)

         Plaintiff challenges the clarity of the payment options. Plaintiff claims that Option 3 is ambiguous as to whether this is a third settlement option or a path to full payment. Plaintiff claims that Option 3 on its own appears to be a path to full payment, but after reading the statement that all three are discount options, the consumer would reasonably believe that the item is a discount. Plaintiff claims that this ambiguity is material because it directly affects the consumer's choice to pay the debt.

         Based on this letter, Plaintiff alleges that MCM has violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices. Plaintiff seeks damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiff also seeks to bring a class action comprising of: “All consumers with a New Jersey address that have received the same form letter as Exhibit A from Defendant MCM concerning debts for Comenity Bank used primarily for personal, household, or family purposes within one year prior to the filing of this complaint.” (Docket No. 1 at 3.)

         MCM has moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) and to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision in the Account Agreement Plaintiff entered into with Comenity, which MCM argues it may enforce as part of Comenity's assignment of Plaintiff's account to MCM. Plaintiff has opposed MCM's motion, arguing that the motion should be denied because MCM has no standing to enforce a provision in an agreement it was not a party to. Plaintiff further argues that the entire agreement is invalid and unenforceable as a matter of law and equity.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Subject matter jurisdiction

         Plaintiff brings this action for damages and declaratory relief arising from the Defendant's violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

         B. Standard for Motion to Dismiss and to Compel Arbitration

         The Third Circuit has articulated the standard for a court to apply when ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.