Carvana v. Mfg Financial, Inc., 2:07-CV-00128DAK.
| Decision Date | 03 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:07-CV-00128DAK.,2:07-CV-00128DAK. |
| Citation | 547 F.Supp.2d 1219 |
| Parties | Kelvin L. CARVANA, Plaintiff, v. MFC FINANCIAL, INC., an Arizona Corporation, Mark F. Gasser, and Nancy D. Gasser, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Utah |
Eric Stephenson, John C. Heath Law Firm PLLC, Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff.
David R. Hamilton, Ogden, UT, for Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Kelvin L. Carvana's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment. The court held a hearing on the motion on March 31, 2008. At the hearing, Eric Stephenson represented Carvana and David R. Hamilton represented Defendants MFC Financial, Inc. (MFG), Mark F. Gasser, and Nancy D. Gasser. Following the hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. Now, having carefully considered the memoranda and additional materials submitted by the parties, as well as the relevant law and facts relating to the motion, the court renders the following Memorandum Decision and Order.
In 1998, G.E. Capital (G.E.) obtained judgment against Carvana in Utah district court for outstanding credit card debt (the Judgment). Carvana did not live in Utah at the; time G.E. commenced the action against him, and Carvana did not sign the contract giving rise to the Judgment in Utah. In December 2005, G.E. assigned the Judgment to MFG, and MFG filed a renewal of the Judgment in Utah small claims court (Small Claims Renewal Action). At the time MFG filed the Small Claims Renewal Action, Carvana did not reside in Utah. On May 3, 2006, the small claims court renewed the Judgment. In August 2006, Carvana filed a motion to vacate the Judgment, claiming improper venue and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Utah small claims court denied this motion, and Carvana appealed the denial of his Motion to Vacate to the Third Judicial District Court for the State of Utah.
The Utah district court granted Carvana's Motion to Vacate on grounds that the small claims court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because under Utah law, assignees, such as MFG, cannot pursue claims in small claims court. The Utah district court also noted that it was not convinced that Carvana had waived the issue of service of process in the small claims action.
On January 10, 2007, Defendants filed a renewal of judgment against Carvana in Utah district court (State Court Renewal Action). Carvana did not reside in Utah at the time MFG filed the State Court Renewal Action. Defendants have yet to serve Carvana in the State Renewal Action.
Following the Utah district court ruling granting Carvana's Motion to Vacate, Carvana moved for attorney fees. The state court denied Carvana's request. Carvana renewed this request, and, on January 23, 2007, the state court again denied the motion and awarded attorney fees against Carvana for filing a frivolous motion (Fee Award). On February 28, 2007, Carvana moved to vacate the Fee Award, arguing that the Utah district court lacked jurisdiction and venue was improper because the state court had previously determined that the small claims court did not have jurisdiction. The Utah court denied Carvana's motion "on grounds that ourt lack[ed] jurisdiction to determine whether or not the judgment Carvana sought to vacate was void," stating that "Carvana's claim would be proper under [r]ule 65(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure ()" (Denial of Motion to Vacate Fee Award).
On June 6, 2007, Carvana brought suit in this court, alleging, among other things, that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-16920 (1998). Carvana now moves for partial summary judgment on his claim that Defendants violated the FDCPA venue provision in bringing their Small Claims Renewal Action and their State Court Renewal Action in Salt Lake County, Utah. See id. § 1692i.
Carvana moves for partial summary judgment on his claim that Defendants violated the FDCPA venue provision. Specifically, Carvana argues that both the Small Claims Renewal Action and the State Court Renewal Action violated the FDCPA's venue provision because Carvana did not sign the contract underlying the renewal judgments in Utah and did not reside in Utah at the time Defendants filed the renewal actions. In response, Defendants do not dispute that Carvana did not sign the underlying contract in Utah. Nor do they dispute that Carvana did not live in Utah at the time Defendants filed the renewal actions. Instead, Defendants assert that Carvana's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is improper on grounds of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and failure to allege a compulsory counterclaim. Defendants also contend that partial summary judgment is inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the bona fide error defense shields Defendants from liability and as to whether the FDCPA applies in this case.
The United States Supreme Court has emphasized that summary judgment is an important procedural mechanism designed to "secure the just, speedy[,] and inexpensive determination of every action." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), "[s]ummary judgment is appropriate only if `there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Adamson v. Multi Cmty. Diversified Services, Inc., 514 F.3d 1136, 1145 (10th Cir.2008) (alteration in original) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). In moving for summary judgment, the moving party "bears the initial burden of making a prima facie demonstration of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law." Whitesel v. Sengenberger, 222 F.3d 861, 867 (10th Cir.2000). "If the movant carries this initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmovant `to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts, identified by reference to affidavits, deposition transcripts, or specific exhibits incorporated therein,' from which a rational trier of fact could find for the nonmovant." Id. (quoting Mitchell v. City of Moore, 218 F.3d 1190, 1197 (10th Cir.2000)). In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court "construe[s] the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Larsen ex ret. Sturdivan v. Murr, 511 F.3d 1255, 1259 (10th Cir.2008).
The FDCPA, enacted by Congress to "eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors," 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e), limits the venues in which debt collectors may bring legal actions against consumers, see id. § 16921. Specifically, the FDCPA venue provision states that
[a]ny debt collector who brings any legal action on a debt against any consumer shall ... in [a case not enforcing real property interest securing a consumer's obligation] ... bring such action only in the judicial district or similar legal entity —
(A) in which such consumer signed the contract sued upon; or
(B) in which such consumer resides at the commencement of the action.
Id. § 1692i(2)(A)-(B).
The parties do not dispute that MFG constitutes a debt collector under the FDCPA. Nor do the parties dispute that Carvana has never resided in Utah and did not sign the contract giving rise to the initial or renewal judgments in Utah. Instead. Defendants assert that summary judgment is improper under the FDCPA venue provision because of res judicata, collateral estoppel, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and failure to allege a compulsory counterclaim. Defendants also contend that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the bona fide error defense shields Defendants from liability and as to whether the FDCPA venue provision applies in this case.
Defendants maintain that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes this court from granting summary judgment on Carvana's FDCPA venue provision violation claim. Specifically, Defendants assert that Carvana's venue provision violation claim is simply an attempt by Carvana to relitigate an issue previously decided by the Utah district court. Because operation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine would divest this court of its jurisdiction and render any additional analysis unnecessary, the court first addresses the doctrine's applicability to the instant case. See Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 463, 126 S.Ct. 1198, 163 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2006).
Although in the past, courts have broadly applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the United States Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of the doctrine. See Guttman v. Khalsa, 446 F.3d 1027, 1031 (10th Cir.2006). In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005), the Court held that "[w]hen there is parallel state and federal litigation, Rooker-Feldman is not triggered simply by the entry of judgment in state court." Id. at 292, 125 S.Ct. 1517. Instead, "[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine ... is confined to ... cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Id. at 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517; see also Lance, 546 U.S. at 464, 126 S.Ct. 1198 (). In contrast, in those cases where, "a federal plaintiff present[s] some independent claim, albeit one that denies a legal conclusion that a state court has reached in a case to which he was a party ..., then there is jurisdiction and state law determines whether the defendant prevails under principles of preclusion." Exxon Mobil, 544 U.S. at 293, 125 S.Ct. 1517.
Accordingly, in light of the Exxon Mobil ruling, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine "applies only to suits filed after state proceedings are final."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cotte v. CVI SGP Acquisition Tr.
...view is that FDCPA claims such as Plaintiffs' are not compulsory counterclaims in actions involving the original debt.”); Carvana, 547 F.Supp.2d at 1227-28 (“[E]very published decision directly addressing issue . . . has found that FDCPA lawsuits and lawsuits arising from the underlying con......
-
Chamberlain v. Crown Asset Mgmt.
...the underlying state court decisions. The court does, however, retain subject matter jurisdiction over the rest of this case.In Carvana v. MFG Fin., Inc. , the court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was inoperable because the FDCPA claim "did not arise from the state court judgment, bu......
- Bioconvergence LLC v. Attariwala
-
McMurray v. Forsythe Fin., LLC
...judgment already paid or for damages measured by its execution"). This also distinguishes this case from Carvana v. MFG Financial, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Utah 2008), a case heavily relied upon by ...