Goodman v. Discover Financial Services, LLC

Background

An earlier opinion granted Discover’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The court gave Aaron Goodman, who was proceeding without a lawyer, until June 24, 2022, to seek permission to file an amended complaint.

Goodman filed a proposed First Amended Complaint. On July 11, 2022, the court denied permission to file it and closed the case because the proposed complaint did not adequately allege either that Discover was a debt collector covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) or that Discover was a creditor using a name other than its own, an exception under the FDCPA’s general rule concerning creditors.

Motions

Goodman then filed a letter motion seeking relief from the July 11 order, two motions seeking relief from a judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, and a motion for leave to file a proposed Second Amended Complaint. Discover opposed the motions.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Rule 60(b) permits relief from a final judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. Such relief generally requires exceptional circumstances. The court found that Goodman had not shown mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the July 11 order. Goodman cited his status as a self-represented litigant, travel commitments, and personal and business obligations, but the court noted that no reply to Discover’s opposition letter had been ordered.

The court also held that, even if Rule 60 relief were warranted, the proposed Second Amended Complaint would not survive dismissal. It alleged in a conclusory way that Discover was a debt collector but did not provide facts showing that Discover collected or attempted to collect debts owed to someone else. The proposed complaint instead stated that the debt was owed to Discover. The court further explained that creditors are generally outside the FDCPA unless they collect their own debts using a false name, which the proposed complaint did not allege.

The opinion also noted that the proposed complaint cited 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but did not allege wrongdoing by state actors. The court therefore did not construe the proposed complaint as asserting a claim under that statute.

Ruling

Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Goodman’s motion for leave to amend and related relief at Docket Nos. 34 through 37 were DENIED. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of Discover, close those motions, and close the case. The order stated that no further applications could be filed in the case except a notice of appeal.