Nelson v. St. Catherine University

Background

Amanda Marie Nelson’s amended complaint asserted three claims. Count 1 alleged violations of the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic-stay provision against both defendants. Count 2 alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against Quigley Law Firm, PLLC (QLF). Count 3 alleged invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion against both defendants.

Both defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. QLF also argued that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim failed to state a claim. In an earlier order, the Court denied the motions, found that it had subject-matter jurisdiction, declined to refer the matter to the bankruptcy court, found that Nelson had adequately pleaded the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, and exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim.

QLF then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify two questions for interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the district court has entered a final judgment. The proposed questions concerned whether Fair Debt Collection Practices Act liability could arise from conduct allegedly violating the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, and whether QLF’s July 12, 2013 email to the Dakota County Court was a debt-collection communication under the applicable “animating purpose” test. The University did not join QLF’s motion.

Court’s analysis

Section 1292(b) requires a proposed appellate question to involve a controlling legal question, present substantial grounds for disagreement, and have an immediate appeal that may materially advance the end of the litigation. The Court noted that interlocutory appeals are generally discouraged and that the party seeking certification bears a heavy burden.

For Question 1, the Court held that the issue was not controlling because the litigation would continue regardless of how the Court of Appeals resolved it. Counts 1 and 3 would remain against both defendants, and Count 2 also included an alleged unlawful-communication violation that did not depend on an automatic-stay violation. The Court rejected QLF’s argument that an appeal would significantly narrow discovery, finding that the claims shared the same factual basis and that the Bankruptcy Code claim’s scienter requirement would likely broaden rather than narrow discovery.

The Court also held that QLF had not shown substantial grounds for disagreement about Question 1. The Court’s earlier analysis relied on binding Eighth Circuit precedent, and every district court within the Eighth Circuit that had addressed the issue had reached the same conclusion. Contrary decisions from courts outside the circuit were insufficient. Because the case would proceed in substantially the same way even if the Eighth Circuit reversed the Court on Question 1, an appeal also would not materially advance the litigation.

For Question 2, the Court held that the proposed issue was not a controlling question of law. QLF did not dispute the governing legal test; instead, it challenged the Court’s application of that test to the particular facts alleged. The Court stated that applying settled law differently to specific facts does not establish a substantial ground for disagreement under § 1292(b).

Disposition

The Court denied Defendant Quigley Law Firm, PLLC’s Motion to Certify Interlocutory Appeal [Doc. No. 68].