Scalabrini v. PMAB, LLC

Background

Gino J. Scalabrini filed a proposed class action against PMAB, LLC; Baptist Hospital, Inc.; and Gulf Coast Collection Bureau, Inc. He alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), a federal statute regulating debt-collection practices, and 23 New York Codes, Rules and Regulations § 1.2(a) and (b).

Scalabrini alleged that he received medical treatment at Gulf Breeze Hospital, which the complaint described as a fictitious entity owned and operated by Baptist. He said the treatment included unauthorized medical procedures. He alleged that PMAB, Gulf Coast, and Baptist sent or caused collection notices, billing notices, telephone messages, and a settlement offer seeking payment for the medical care. He also alleged that the defendants did not investigate his written disputes and reported the alleged debt to credit-reporting agencies.

Baptist moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Baptist alternatively sought transfer to the Northern District of Florida. PMAB and Gulf Coast joined only the request to transfer the case.

Claims Against Baptist

The court treated Baptist as a creditor rather than an entity whose main purpose was collecting debts. Creditors generally are not covered by the FDCPA, but the statute has a “false name” exception when a creditor collects its own debts using another name in a way that falsely indicates an unrelated third party is collecting them.

The court held that Scalabrini did not plausibly allege that Baptist’s use of the Gulf Breeze Hospital name triggered that exception. The complaint alleged that the medical procedures were performed at Gulf Breeze Hospital, that Baptist consistently used that name in its collection communications, and that Gulf Breeze Hospital was Baptist’s registered fictitious name. The court concluded that these allegations did not plausibly show that a consumer would believe an unrelated third-party debt collector was collecting the debt. The court also noted that Scalabrini did not allege that he was actually confused and that his assertion that Baptist used the name to indicate third-party collection was a legal conclusion rather than sufficient factual support.

The court therefore granted Baptist’s motion to dismiss the FDCPA claims against it. Scalabrini did not oppose dismissal of his New York regulatory claims, and the court also granted Baptist’s motion to dismiss those claims. The conclusion states that Baptist’s complaint was dismissed against it in its entirety.

Transfer of Venue

The court found that the case could have been brought in the Northern District of Florida because a substantial part of the events underlying the claims occurred there and the parties did not dispute that the court would have personal jurisdiction over the defendants. The court then weighed the factors governing transfer for convenience and the interests of justice.

One factor—the convenience of the putative class members—weighed in favor of transfer. The plaintiff’s choice of forum weighed against transfer, but less strongly because this was a proposed class action. The remaining factors were neutral, including the convenience of witnesses, location of documents, location of operative facts, availability of subpoenas, the parties’ relative means, and the courts’ equal familiarity with federal law. The court also treated trial efficiency and the interests of justice as neutral because the parties had not briefed them.

The court concluded that the defendants had not made the required clear and convincing showing that transfer was appropriate. It denied the transfer portion of Baptist’s motion and denied PMAB and Gulf Coast’s motion to transfer. PMAB and Gulf Coast were directed to answer the complaint by April 3, 2020. The clerk was directed to remove Baptist from the caption and terminate the motions at docket entries 22 and 25.