Manorcare of Easton Pa LLC v. Nagy, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5957
| Decision Date | 29 September 2017 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5957 |
| Parties | MANORCARE OF EASTON PA LLC, Plaintiff, v. THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH A. NAGY, Defendant THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH A. NAGY and JOSEPH EUGENE NAGY, Counter-Plaintiffs, v. MANORCARE OF EASTON PA LLC; KENNEDY, PC; NORTHAMPTON COUNTY; AETNA, INC.; DR. EDWARD CUMBO; DR. DILIP BERA; BRAKELEY PARK CENTER; NEW EASTWOOD CARE AND REHAB; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; DR. STEPHEN KSIAZEK; and ST. LUKE'S WARREN HOSPITAL, Counter-Defendants |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Counter-Defendants moved to dismiss the Nagys' amended counterclaim in eleven individual motions. This Court will address each Count from the amended counterclaim below as it corresponds to Counter-Defendants. Given this Court's longstanding history with the facts of this case and its procedural complexity, the Court will adopt the facts and procedural history outlined in its June 25, 2015 Memorandum Opinion (ECF Docket No. 33).1
As stated in our June 25, 2015 Opinion, given the relative comprehensibility of the Nagys' amended counterclaim and the fact that the newly served Counter-Defendants eventually timely moved to dismiss, it made sense and was more efficient to focus on the document as filed rather than grant the Counter-Defendants' Motion for a More Definite Statement. The Nagys' amended counterclaim contained identifiable, enumerated lists of counts on which court proceedings could focus.2
However, this Court sufficiently reviewed the Nagys' amended counterclaim and finds that it fails to satisfy the pleading standard required to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Therefore, the Counter-Defendants' motions are granted and each count in the amended counterclaim shall be dismissed. The Court's reasoning is stated below.
"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, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim satisfies the plausibility standard when the facts alleged "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Burtch v. Millberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 220-21 (3d Cir. 2011) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). While the plausibility standard is not "akin to a 'probability requirement,'" there nevertheless must be more than a "sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "Where a complaint pleads facts that are 'merely consistent with' a defendant's liability, it 'stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
The Court of Appeals requires us to apply a three-step analysis under a 12(b)(6) motion: (1) "it must 'tak[e] note of the elements [the] plaintiff must plead to state a claim;'" (2) "it should identify allegations that, 'because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth;'" and, (3) "[w]hen there are well-pleaded factual allegations, [the] court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief." Connelly v. Lane Construction Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 675, 679); see also Burtch, 662 F.3d at 221; Malleus v. George, 641 F.3d 560, 563 (3d. Cir. 2011); Santiago v. Warminster Township, 629 F.3d 121, 130 (3d. Cir. 2010).
However, a document filed pro se must be "liberally construed." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). The Third Circuit has instructed that if a complaint is vulnerable to dismissal for failure to state a claim, the district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).
To establish a prima facie case under 15 U.S.C. 1692i(a)(1) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), a plaintiff must prove: "(i) she is a natural person who is harmed by violations of the FDCPA, or is a 'consumer' within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a(3), 1692(d) for purposes of a cause of action; (ii) the 'debt' arises out of a transaction entered primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; (iii) the defendant is a 'debt collector' within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6); and (iv) the defendant has violated, by act or omission, a provision of the FDCPA."3 Goins v. MetLife Home Loans, 2014 WL 5431154, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
The Nagys allege ManorCare's complaint violates the FDCPA in Counts One (§ 1692i(a)(1)), Two (§ 1692i(a)(2)(A)), and Three (§ 1692i(a)(2)(B)) because: 1) it was brought in the wrong location, as Northampton County is not the place of any involved real property; 2) there was no contract; and 3) the suit was improperly filed in Pennsylvania as Mr. Nagy is "an inhabitant of the land of New Jersey." Count Four (§ 1692g(a)(1)) alleges a violation of FDCPA notice requirements for the amount of debt owed. Given the similarity of Counts I-IV against ManorCare, the Court will address them together before moving to Counts V-XII.
ManorCare moved to dismiss the Nagys' amended counterclaim for insufficiency on Counts I-IV, alleging the Nagys failed to plead any element establishing a prima facie case for a violation under the FDCPA. (ECF Docket No. 36, at 3) (emphasis added). This Court agrees with ManorCare that Counts I-IV should be dismissed, however, not because the Nagys failed to plead any element of the FDCPA; rather, this Court finds the Nagys did not allege ManorCare was a "debt collector" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Additionally, this Court does not consider ManorCare a "debt collector" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
The Supreme Court has found that "attorneys who regularly engage in debt collection or debt collection litigation are covered by the FDCPA, and their litigation activities must comply with the requirement of the act." Goins, 2014 WL 5431154, at *4 (citing Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995)). Moreover, our Circuit has defined "debt collector" based on the volume of in rem mortgage foreclosure actions filed in the Court of Common Pleas. Id. (citing Crossley v. Lieberman, 868 F.2d 566 (3d Cir. 1989)). 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) defines a "debt collector" as "any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails in any business the principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due asserted to be owed or due another. 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (emphasis added).
While the Nagys' amended counterclaim factually alleges ManorCare "filed their debt claim in Northampton County PA," the disjointed allegations within the amended counterclaim merely allege ManorCare attempted to collect an unpaid bill for Mrs. Nagy's care at the ManorCare of Easton, PA facility. Specifically, the Nagys aver that "a letter addressed to Joseph Nagy, Jr. with important billing information enclosed was received at the Nagy home and refused." (ECF Docket no. 14, at 20 ¶109) (emphasis added). Additionally, "ManorCare again wrongly sent Joseph Nagy, Jr. another important bill for Joseph Eugene." (Id. at 20 ¶118) (emphasis added). And finally, "[o]n or about September 15, 2013, Joseph Albert received process for ManorCare's lawsuit for the nursing home facility's debt." (Id. at 23 ¶127.) Taken together, these factual allegations do not establish a prima facie case under the FDCPA. The Nagys do not allege ManorCare was a debt collector, let alone a debt collector within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
Assuming the Nagys properly pled ManorCare was a "debt collector" under the FDCPA, this Court does not find ManorCare to be a debt collector. ManorCare's business is not the "principal purpose of which is the collection of any debts" and does not regularly collect or attempt to collect "debts owed or due asserted to be owed or due another." ManorCare's principal business is to "provide individualized post-hospital skilled nursing care," not debt collection. See ManorCare Health Services-Easton, https://www.heartland-manorcare.com/locations/manorcare-health-services-easton/. Thus, this Court does not find ManorCare itself to be a debt collector.
However, it is understood that our circuit and sister courts recognize law firms engaging in debt collection on behalf of clients as debt collectors. Crossley v. Lieberman, 868 F.2d 566 (3d. Cir 1989) (); see also Sandlin v. Shapiro & Fishman, 919 F. Supp. 1564 (M.D. Fla. 1996) ().
Here, Kennedy, PC Law Offices ("Kennedy Law") represented ManorCare in the collections case in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, Case No. C48-Cv2013-8832; later removed by Joseph A. Nagy, and presently before this Court. Presumably, Kennedy Law represented ManorCare in the state court proceedings as attorney and debt collector.4 However, the Nagys amended counterclaim before this Court does not allege Kennedy...
To continue reading
Request your trial