Rosenfeld v. Capital Management Services, LP
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-11490
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosenfeld v. Capital Management, Judge Karas granted Rosenfeld’s application and denied CMS’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice, allowing discovery to continue.
Rosenfeld and Capital Management Services, LP. Discovery continues, and CMS may seek permission to refile its summary-judgment motion after discovery.
What happened
Rosenfeld v. Capital Management Services, LP concerns a letter that Capital Management Services sent to collect an unpaid debt. Rosenfeld claimed the letter was deceptive under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it said the balance could increase through interest, late charges, and other charges.
The parties had agreed to discovery focused on whether interest was accruing and for how long. Capital Management Services filed a summary-judgment motion, and Rosenfeld asked to reopen discovery and/or strike that motion. The court found that the motion was broader than what the parties had authorized at an earlier conference.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Rosenfeld’s application and denied Capital Management Services’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice. After discovery ends, Capital Management Services may ask for permission to file the motion again. The court also directed the parties to submit a proposed case-management order and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Rosenfeld v. Capital Management Services, LP · No. 7:19-cv-11490
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 1, 2021
Background
This case concerns a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Capital Management Services, LP (CMS) sent Rosenfeld a collection letter stating that, because of interest, late charges, and other charges that could vary from day to day, the balance would be greater on the day of payment.
Rosenfeld’s amended complaint alleged that the letter was deceptive because, although the debt was accruing interest, it was not also accruing late charges and other charges. CMS moved for summary judgment, which is a request to resolve a claim without a trial when the moving party contends that the undisputed facts require judgment in its favor.
Discovery and Motions
At an October 30, 2020 conference, the parties agreed that CMS would seek summary judgment based only on two grounds: that interest was accruing, and that the letter was accurate if any one of interest, late charges, or other charges was accruing. The court stated that the parties would conduct discovery about whether interest was accruing and for how long, followed by briefing.
CMS filed its summary-judgment motion. Rosenfeld then applied to reopen discovery and/or strike CMS’s motion. The opinion text includes CMS’s argument that Rosenfeld had already had enough time to pursue discovery, but the court’s ruling focused on the parties’ agreement and the court’s prior guidance.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted Rosenfeld’s application. The court denied CMS’s summary-judgment motion without prejudice because it was inconsistent with the October 30 conference guidance and broader than the motion the court had authorized at that conference.
The court stated that, after discovery concludes, CMS may file a pre-motion letter requesting permission to refile its summary-judgment motion. The parties were ordered to file a proposed case-management order by March 8, 2021. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions, identified as docket entries 40 and 43.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not state whether Rosenfeld’s FDCPA claim ultimately succeeds or whether CMS is entitled to summary judgment on the merits. It addressed the scope and timing of CMS’s motion and allowed the discovery process to continue.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.