Taylor v. Enterprise Holding Group, LLC

Background

Ronald G. Taylor, appearing without a lawyer, sued Enterprise Holding Group, LLC. He alleged that he rented, leased, or otherwise received possession of a 2019 Jeep Grand Cherokee through Enterprise in August 2019. On October 17, 2019, an Enterprise employee told him that the vehicle had been in an accident. Taylor denied knowing about the accident. On October 31, 2019, Enterprise employee Alexander Pope allegedly demanded that Taylor pay $1,000 and threatened to end Enterprise’s relationship with him, interfere with his ability to rent from other car companies, and refer the matter to a collection agency.

Taylor alleged extortion under 18 U.S.C. § 875(d), harassment or abuse under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and discrimination under 22 U.S.C. § 2755. He sought a declaration and $100,000 in damages. He alleged that he lived in Manhattan, but he did not provide Enterprise’s address or information about the citizenship of the LLC’s members.

Screening standard

Because Taylor was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. It had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although it must read filings by people without lawyers liberally, those filings must still provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Federal claims

The court concluded that the alleged facts did not support the federal statutes Taylor cited.

For the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim, the court explained that the statute applies to qualifying consumer debts and generally regulates debt collectors rather than creditors collecting their own debts. Even assuming that the Enterprise employee acted deceptively or misleadingly, the employee was speaking as a creditor, not as a debt collector. Taylor alleged that Enterprise threatened to refer the matter to a collection agency, but the complaint did not suggest that a collection agency had yet become involved. The court therefore stated that it did not appear Taylor could state a claim under the Act.

For extortion, the court held that a private citizen cannot prosecute a federal criminal case. It also explained that extortion and attempted extortion are criminal offenses and do not create a private civil cause of action. The extortion allegations therefore did not create a civil claim within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

For discrimination, the court found that 22 U.S.C. § 2755, which concerns discrimination in providing defense articles or defense services, was unrelated to the alleged events. The court instead read the complaint as attempting to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which protects equal rights to make and enforce contracts. The court said Taylor had not alleged enough facts to support an inference that Enterprise intended to discriminate against him because of race. It granted him leave to provide additional facts supporting a § 1981 claim.

Diversity jurisdiction

The court also considered whether it could hear any state-law claims based on diversity of citizenship. Taylor alleged that he was a New York citizen, but he did not allege the citizenship of each member of Enterprise Holding Group, LLC, as required for an LLC. The court therefore could not determine whether complete diversity existed. It also found no factual basis showing that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Taylor demanded $100,000, but the court said that amount appeared speculative because the complaint centered on a disputed $1,000 demand and did not provide supporting facts.

The court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims because it was not clear that Taylor could state a claim within the court’s original jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted Taylor leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to comply with the court’s stated requirements, be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, be labeled “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-6793 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Taylor did not comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order did not dismiss the complaint at that stage.