United States District Court, D. New Jersey
EDWARD J. HILL and MAXINE HILL, Plaintiff,
BURGEON LEGAL GROUP, LTD. CO., et al., Defendants.
HILL WILSON LAW OFFICE OF RHONDA HILL WILSON, P.C. On behalf
CHRISTIAN M. SCHEUERMAN MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN,
DOHERTY & KELLY, PC CHERRY TREE CORPORATE CENTER On
behalf of Defendant Burgeon Legal Group, Ltd. Co. and Ivana
L. WU MICHAEL R. MILLER MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN THE CURTIS CENTER,
On behalf of Defendant Timothy K. McHugh, Esq.
R. LANGEL JAMES BUCCI GENOVA BURNS LLC On behalf of
Defendants Genesis Healthcare Corporation And 1420 South
Black Horse Pike Operations, LLC dba Meadowview Nursing and
L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
Edward J. Hill is the son of Plaintiff Maxine Hill. Maxine
Hill resides at Defendant 1420 South Black Horse Pike
Operations, LLC dba Meadowview Nursing and Respiratory Care
(“Meadowview”), which is a residential skilled
nursing home and long-term care provider. Maxine Hill is
quadriplegic and ventilator-dependent, allegedly caused from
complications from surgery performed on April 18, 2018, and
she has resided at Meadowview since July 8, 2018. Edward Hill
holds power-of-attorney for his mother, who remains mentally
22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants (1)
Meadowview, (2) counsel for Meadowview, Ivana Grujic, who
filed a verified complaint for conservatorship for Maxine
Hill in New Jersey state court, (3) the court-appointed
attorney for Maxine Hill with regard to a verified complaint
for conservatorship, Timothy K. McHugh, (4) the
owner/operator of Meadowview, Genesis Healthcare Corporation,
and (5) Burgeon Legal Group, Ltd. Co., the law firm with
which Grujic is affiliated. All of Plaintiffs' claims
arise out of a purported debt owed by Plaintiffs.
claim that Defendants Grujic and Meadowview violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §
1681, et seq. (Count I). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants
Burgeon, Grujic, McHugh, Genesis, and Meadowbrook violated
the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act
(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (Count
II). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants Burgeon, Grujic,
McHugh, Genesis, and Meadowbrook violated the Federal Trade
Commission Act (“FTC”), 15 U.S.C. § 45, et
Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims
against them. Plaintiffs have filed oppositions to
Defendants' motions, although they do not contest certain
arguments presented by some of the Defendants, as noted
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Court has federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'
claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Standard for Motion to Dismiss
Rule 8(a), a pleading is sufficient if it contains “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
Even though Rule 8(a) does not require that a complaint
contain detailed factual allegations, “a
plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The complaint's
factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a
plaintiff's right to relief above a speculative level, so
that a claim is “plausible on its face, ” and
that facial-plausibility standard is met “when the
plaintiff pleads ...