Davis v. Citizens Bank, N.A.

Background

Edward F. Davis and Regina C. Davis, who were proceeding without lawyers and without paying the filing fee, sued Citizens Bank, N.A., and Citizens One Home Loans. They alleged that the defendants mishandled a mortgage contract, violated bankruptcy-related requirements, and violated consumer-credit laws.

The plaintiffs alleged that Citizens Bank, which they identified as the mortgage holder for their home, failed to pay property taxes in February 2018. They said this caused $1,086.15 in late fees and interest, which was deducted from their escrow account. They also alleged that the resulting public notice of delinquent taxes led to unwanted inquiries from people seeking to benefit from their situation and caused them stress and mental anguish.

The court had previously dismissed the original complaint because it did not state a valid federal claim. It also found that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the bankruptcy-related claims and that the plaintiffs had not established diversity jurisdiction, including because they did not allege damages exceeding $75,000. The court gave them 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Amended Complaint and FDCPA Claim

The amended complaint was essentially identical to the original complaint, but it asserted that the claims arose under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1692d. That provision prohibits a debt collector from engaging in conduct whose natural consequence is to harass, oppress, or abuse a person while collecting a debt.

The court explained that the FDCPA applies to certain consumer debts and regulates conduct by entities that meet the statute's definition of a “debt collector.” The plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that either defendant qualified as a debt collector. The court further held that, even if the defendants were debt collectors, the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that the defendants took action violating the FDCPA. The allegations instead concerned mortgage-management, bankruptcy-related, and consumer-credit issues generally.

Ruling

The court dismissed any FDCPA claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Because the plaintiffs had already received an opportunity to amend and the court determined that the defects could not be cured by another amendment, it declined to grant further leave to amend. The court dismissed the amended complaint and directed the clerk to mail the order to the plaintiffs and record service on the docket. Judge Louis L. Stanton signed the order.