Gentile v. NCSPlus Incorporated

Background

Florence Gentile, Scott Norris, and Marissa Gentile sued NCSPlus Incorporated, Susan Holzman, and Robert S. Timmerman. The complaint asserted claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and section 349 of the New York General Business Law based on alleged efforts to collect rent owed under a residential lease.

The court had set June 21, 2024, as the discovery deadline. Holzman and Timmerman—the individual defendants—asked to file a summary-judgment motion before discovery closed. The court permitted the motion but warned that it could decline to consider later, successive summary-judgment motions.

The Motion and Rule 56(d) Request

The individual defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were not regularly engaged in debt collection and therefore were not covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. They also argued that a private lease dispute did not fall within section 349 of the New York General Business Law.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). That rule allows a court to delay or deny a summary-judgment motion when the opposing party shows by declaration or affidavit that it cannot yet present essential facts because it needs additional discovery. The plaintiffs said they needed information about whether the individual defendants regularly collected debts or whether any debt-collection activity was merely incidental to their other duties. They also stated that the individual defendants had not produced documents responding to the plaintiffs’ requests.

While the motion was pending, the magistrate judge extended the discovery deadline by 60 days, making August 20, 2024, the new deadline for completing discovery.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon held that this was not one of the rare cases in which summary judgment could be granted against plaintiffs who had not been given an opportunity to complete discovery. The motion had been filed months before the original discovery deadline, and discovery had been ongoing for less than two months when the motion was filed.

The court concluded that the requested discovery could reasonably be expected to identify a genuine dispute of material fact concerning whether the individual defendants were regularly engaged in debt collection. The plaintiffs’ counsel had also described what information was sought, the efforts made to obtain it, and why those efforts had not succeeded. The individual defendants did not directly address the Rule 56(d) arguments in their reply.

Disposition

The court DENIED the individual defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice under Rule 56(d). The court also DENIED their related request to stay discovery and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion pending at ECF No. 59. The opinion did not decide whether the individual defendants were covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or whether section 349 applied to the alleged conduct.