Haber v. EOS CCA

Background

David Martin Haber, who was representing himself, sued Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, a collection agency. His original state-court pleading described a false collection-agency claim and alleged that EOS CCA tried to collect money he did not owe. He initially sought $25,000.

After EOS CCA removed the case to federal court, Haber filed an amended complaint identifying the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and other federal statutes, and increased his requested judgment to $460,000. The court found that pleading entirely conclusory and ordered him to file a second amended complaint describing the alleged violations, the people involved, the debt, relevant communications and events, the statutes allegedly violated, and the relief sought.

Haber filed his second amended complaint on December 3, 2020, after the November 12 deadline and without leave from the court. The pleading alleged that, after he disputed the debt, EOS CCA continued making automated calls, abused its power, and knowingly reported a false disputed claim to credit bureaus. It did not identify the statutes supporting his claims. It attached two EOS CCA collection notices concerning a $379.33 debt originally owed to Verizon.

Motions and Analysis

EOS CCA had filed repeated motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(e), which allows a party to request a more definite statement when a pleading is so vague or ambiguous that the party cannot reasonably prepare a response. EOS CCA moved to strike the second amended complaint as untimely or, alternatively, renewed its request for a more definite statement.

The court exercised its discretion to overlook the late filing and lack of permission because of the special consideration generally given to people representing themselves. It accepted the second amended complaint for filing and denied EOS CCA’s motion to strike it as untimely.

Because the second amended complaint replaced the earlier amended complaint, the court denied as moot EOS CCA’s second Rule 12(e) motion directed at the earlier pleading. The court also denied the alternative request for another amended complaint. It reasoned that Haber had already received multiple opportunities, prior motions identifying defects, and detailed guidance from the court. The court concluded that the second amended complaint was the clearest statement Haber was able or willing to provide, and that requiring another amendment would cause further delay.

The court further determined that the attached collection notices informed EOS CCA of the general nature of the action and the incident underlying it. The court explained that Rule 12(e) addresses unintelligible pleadings, not merely pleadings lacking detail. If EOS CCA believed the second amended complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim, the court said it could file a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint states a claim for relief.

Disposition

The court accepted the second amended complaint for filing. It denied as moot EOS CCA’s Rule 12(e) motion concerning the amended complaint. It denied EOS CCA’s motion to strike the second amended complaint or, alternatively, seek a more definite statement. EOS CCA was ordered to answer or file another motion concerning the second amended complaint by January 5, 2021. No further amended pleadings would be accepted unless the court later ordered otherwise. Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses signed the memorandum and order.