Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 96-3093,96-3498,s. 96-3093 |
| Citation | 135 F.3d 389 |
| Parties | William C. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACB BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., Defendant-Appellee (96-3093/3498), American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.; James P. Connors, Defendants-Appellees (96-3498). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Jason D. Fregeau (argued and briefed), Yellow Springs, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
James Patrick Connors (argued and briefed), Columbus, OH, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CONTIE, RYAN, and BOGGS, Circuit Judges.
BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which CONTIE, J., joined. RYAN, J. (pp. 413-16), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
The two actions involved in this appeal arose out of William C. Lewis's credit relationship with American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. ("Amex"). Lewis owes a substantial sum of money to Amex for charges he made on his Gold Card. After he stopped making payment, Amex hired ACB Business Services, Inc. ("ACB") to collect on the debt. These events led to the filing of three lawsuits, two by Lewis and one by Amex. At issue in this appeal are the two suits filed by Lewis. Because these suits are closely related, we deal with both in this opinion. The first suit was filed by Lewis in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Dayton ("the Dayton case"). In this suit, Lewis alleged that ACB's collection efforts violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ("OCSPA"). A jury trial was held, and at the conclusion of all the evidence, the court granted ACB's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
After the Dayton case had been filed, Amex sued Lewis in state court to recover the unpaid balance on the Gold Card. Lewis then filed suit in the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division at Cincinnati ("the Cincinnati case"). In this second action, Lewis alleged that ACB, Amex, and James P. Connors had filed the state court action in retaliation for Lewis having filed the Dayton case. He claimed that this violated the FDCPA, the OCSPA, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"). Amex and ACB moved to dismiss Lewis's complaint and Connors moved to strike the complaint against him. The district court granted defendants' motions. Lewis now appeals the judgments against him in both cases. We affirm.
Lewis does not dispute that he ran up thousands of dollars in debt on his Amex Gold Card during 1992. 1 Amex hired ACB to collect this debt. Prior to the commencement of ACB's collection efforts, Lewis had negotiated with Amex over the debt and became upset when the account was referred to ACB for collection.
ACB's collection efforts began in February 1993. On March 1, 1993, Lewis sent a letter to ACB, requesting that ACB cease communications in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 1692c. 2 At issue on this appeal are two contacts ACB made after Lewis sent this letter: (1) a letter ACB sent to Lewis on June 3, 1993, and (2) a telephone call placed by ACB to Lewis on July 8, 1994. 3
On June 3, 1993, ACB sent a letter to Lewis. The letter states in relevant part:
PAYMENT SUPERVISOR
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
YOUR ACCOUNT BALANCE MAY BE PERIODICALLY INCREASED DUE TO THE ADDITION OF ACCRUED INTEREST OR OTHER CHARGES AS PROVIDED IN YOUR AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CREDITOR.
Although the letter indicates that Lewis should contact " ," no such person existed at ACB. Nor was the alias " " assigned to any one person there. The evidence showed that " " was a name used by ACB to alert its employees regarding the status of the account. The evidence also showed, however, that a specific representative had been assigned to Lewis's account. ACB attempted no further contact relating to this letter, and after the letter had been sent, ACB returned Lewis's account to Amex. It was not until Lewis initiated suit in the Dayton case that the account was returned to ACB. 4
When Amex returned the account to ACB, Amex miscoded the account as a new referral, rather than a reopening. Thus, it appeared in ACB's computer system as a new account. Based on this miscoding, an initial collection letter was generated by ACB. Although the letter was never sent, an initial contact call, lasting approximately one minute, was made to Lewis on July 8, 1994, before the mistake was caught by ACB.
Janet Schohan, one of ACB's FDCPA compliance officers, discovered ACB's mistake after arriving at work in Phoenix. She was able to stop the letter from being sent, but the telephone call had already been placed because of the three hour time difference between the Phoenix and New Jersey offices. 5 When Schohan learned of the error, she immediately terminated all collection activity and ACB took no further action on the account.
During discovery in the Dayton case, Lewis moved to compel ACB to produce "the balance of its contract with Amex," because he claimed that it controlled ACB's collection activities with respect to his account. 6 The court denied the request, finding that any contract between ACB and Amex had no relevance to the issue of whether ACB's collection efforts violated the FDCPA or the OCSPA. 7
Meanwhile, on October 14, 1994, before trial in the Dayton case, Amex filed suit against Lewis in Franklin County Common Pleas Court ("the state court action") to recover the unpaid balance on the Gold Card. Amex is represented in that case by Connors, who is also ACB's trial attorney in the Dayton case, as well as the trial attorney and a defendant in the Cincinnati case. As a result of Amex suing Lewis in state court, Lewis filed the Cincinnati case on March 27, 1995, shortly before the trial was originally scheduled to take place in the Dayton case. The two cases were consolidated at Lewis's request. He then tried to have venue of both cases transferred from Dayton to Cincinnati. The trial court consolidated the cases, but declined Lewis's request for change of venue. The Dayton case therefore remained before Magistrate Judge Merz for all purposes, the parties having agreed to plenary magistrate judge jurisdiction in that case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and the Cincinnati case remained on Magistrate Judge Merz's docket for pretrial purposes only (since Lewis had specifically declined plenary magistrate judge jurisdiction in that case). The district court cited Lewis's attempt at forum shopping and the district's local rule for hearing consolidated cases in the venue in which the first case is filed as reasons for refusing the change in venue.
Lewis also made a motion to bring new claims in the Dayton case just before the trial was supposed to start. He contended that the new claims were necessary because they arose after Amex had returned his account to ACB on July 8, 1994. The district court granted Lewis's motion to amend the complaint and vacated the Dayton case trial date set for May 8, 1995. ACB sought reconsideration of this order, but its motion was denied.
A jury trial in the Dayton case was held on January 9 and 10, 1996, before Magistrate Judge Merz. At the conclusion of Lewis's proof, the court granted in part and denied in part ACB's Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the court denied Lewis's motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted ACB's cross-motion, thus eliminating all remaining allegations against ACB.
In the Cincinnati case, Mr. Lewis alleged that Amex, ACB, and Connors had used the state court action to retaliate against him because he had filed suit against ACB. He claimed that when Amex brought the state court action it, as well as ACB and Connors, violated the FDCPA, the OCSPA, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"). Amex and ACB moved to dismiss Lewis's complaint and Connors moved to strike the complaint against him. Because the parties presented matters outside the pleadings, Connors's motion was treated as one for summary judgment. After hearing argument, Magistrate Judge Merz filed a report and recommendation regarding the various motions. He recommended that Connors's motion for summary judgment be granted on the ground that Connors was not a debt collector as a matter of law. The magistrate judge also recommended that Lewis's remaining claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In addition, he denied Lewis's motions to strike and for a change in venue. District Judge Spiegel adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendations.
On appeal, Lewis raises numerous claims of error. In the Dayton case, he argues that the district court erred in (1) granting ACB's motion for judgment as a matter of law on Lewis's FDCPA claims; (2) denying Lewis discovery of an agreement between Amex and ACB; and (3) granting ACB's motion for judgment as a matter of law on Lewis's OCSPA claims. In the Cincinnati case he claims that the district court erred in (1) dismissing his ECOA claim; (2) granting Connors's motion for summary judgment based solely on his affidavit; (3) finding that ACB did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whittiker v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
...deceptive applying the objective "least sophisticated consumer" test is not a violation of the FDCPA. See Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 401-02 (6th Cir.1998).19 Further, simple inability to prove present debt ownership at the time a collection action is filed does not ......
-
In re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:03-md-1565.
...under some viable legal theory.'" Ferron v. Zoomego, Inc., 276 Fed.Appx. 473, 475 (6th Cir.2008) (quoting Lewis v. ACB Business Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 406 (6th Cir.1998)). III. THRESHOLD CHALLENGES TO THE A. Personal Jurisdiction Over Rebecca Parrett Rebecca Parrett, an Arizona resident......
-
Diggs v. U.S. Dep't of Air Force, Case No.: 3:20-cv-16
...of the essential, material elements necessary to sustain a claim for relief under some viable legal theory. Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc., 135 F. 3d 389, 406 (6th Cir. 1998). To withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a complaint must allege "enough facts to sta......
-
Michigan Bell Tele. Co. v. Mfs Intelenet of Mich.
...as true. The Court, however, need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. Lewis v. ACB Business Serv., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405 (6th Cir.1998). The purpose of this motion is to determine whether plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. II......
-
Disclosure Of Opinions Of Counsel To Customers Waived Privilege As To The Opinions And The Subject Matter Of The Opinions
...of Defendants' willful infringement. The relevance standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 is very broad. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. Ohio 1998) ("The scope of discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is traditionally quite Finally, the district court ......
-
Table of Cases
...1967), §4:123 Levi Strauss & Co v. Blue Bell, Inc., 778 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1985), Form 7-10 Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc. , 135 F.3d 389, 412 (6th Cir. 1998), §7:50 Lewy v. Remington Arms Corp. , 836 F.2d 1104, 1112 (8th Cir. 1988), §5:25 Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Electronic Syst......
-
Motions
...The court has broad discretion to engage in a balancing process to decide if consolidation is proper. Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc. , 135 F.3d 389, 412 (6th Cir. 1998). Also, courts can order consolidation even if the parties object. Cantrell v. GAF Corp. , 999 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir......