Scioli v. Goldman & Warshaw P.C.

651 F. Supp. 2d 273, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78239, 2009 WL 2762165
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 1, 2009
DocketCivil Action 08-cv-5739 (JEI/JS)
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 651 F. Supp. 2d 273 (Scioli v. Goldman & Warshaw P.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scioli v. Goldman & Warshaw P.C., 651 F. Supp. 2d 273, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78239, 2009 WL 2762165 (D.N.J. 2009).

Opinion

OPINION

IRENAS, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff James Scioli brings this Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, class action suit against Defendant Goldman & Warshaw, P.C. (“Goldman”), the law firm seeking to collect a debt Plaintiff allegedly owes to non-party Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (“Capital One”). 1

Two issues are raised by Goldman’s present Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). First, does New Jersey law permit recovery of both contractual attorneys fees and statutory attorneys fees in a successful suit to recover a debt? (See 2nd Amend. Compl. Count 1) Second, even if New Jersey law permits collection of both fees, could the least sophisticated debtor be deceived by a debt collector including a specific sum of statutory fees in a court summons when the statutory fee is only actually due and owing after judgment is entered for the debt collector? (See 2nd Amend. Compl. Count 2)

The Court concludes that the answer to the first question is yes and the answer to the second question is no. Accordingly, Goldman’s Motion to Dismiss will be granted.

I.

In October, 2008, Goldman, on behalf of its client, Capital One, filed a lawsuit against Scioli, a Capital One credit card holder, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. 2 The complaint seeks to collect the alleged outstanding balance on Scioli’s credit card, demanding judgment of “$3,410.16 plus any additional accrued interest, contractual attorney fees (if applicable) and costs.” (State Court Complaint 3 ) The accompanying summons con *275 tains the following itemization in the top right corner of the document:

Demand Amount $3,410.16
Filing Fee $ 50.00
Service Fee $ 7.00
Contractual Atty Fee $ 337.81
Statutory Attorney’s Fee $ 82,86
Total $3,887.83

Scioli contends that Goldman violated the FDCPA in the following manner. Count One of the Second Amended Complaint alleges, “contractual attorney’s fees and statutory attorneys [fees] are not legally able to be collected in the same case[;] ... [therefore] Defendant misrepresented the amount due and attempted to ‘double dip’ the counsel fee award by collecting such fees under two different, mutually exclusive, fee mechanisms.” (2nd Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 11,15)

Count Two of the Second Amended Complaint alleges,

to the extent that it may be possible to collect the two types of [attorney’s] fees in one proceeding, the statutory fees are in the nature of taxed costs and are thus not due at the time the statutory fees are represented to the consumer as being due.... By including the statutory fees in the initial pleading ... — when any taxed costs are not due because the litigation has not been successfully concluded in favor of the creditor — the total debt due is being misrepresented, the debtor is confused as to what sums are necessary to satisfy the debt and/or the Defendant is attempting to collect a debt in [a] fashion ... not permitted by the FDCPA.

(2nd Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 11, 18) (emphasis in original)

Goldman moves to dismiss both Counts, arguing that: (1) it may legally collect both contractual and statutory attorneys fees; and (2) stating, at the outset of the case, the amount of statutory attorneys fees due is not deceptive.

II.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a court may dismiss a complaint “for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” In order to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege facts that raise a right to relief above the speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). While a court must accept as true ail allegations in the plaintiffs complaint, and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir.2008), a court is not required to accept sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations, unwarranted inferences, or unsupported conclusions. Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.1997). The complaint must state sufficient facts to show that the legal allegations are not simply possible, but plausible. Phillips, 515 F.3d at 234. “A claim has facial plausibility *276 when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,-U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

III.

With respect to the actions of debt collectors 4 , the FDCPA prohibits “false or misleading representations,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, and “unfair practices,” 15 U.S.C. § 1692f. Insofar as relevant to the present suit,

A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(2) The false representation of—
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or
(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(2)(A)-(B).

A debt collector may not use unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

FORD v. SECOND ROUND SUB LLC
W.D. Pennsylvania, 2024
HUBER v. SIMON'S AGENCY, INC.
E.D. Pennsylvania, 2021
Hawkins v. Bruce
W.D. Kentucky, 2021
Thomas v. John A. Youderian Jr., LLC
232 F. Supp. 3d 656 (D. New Jersey, 2017)
Wilson v. Trott Law, P.C.
118 F. Supp. 3d 953 (E.D. Michigan, 2015)
CHASE BANK USA v. Staffenberg
17 A.3d 239 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 2011)
Chulsky v. Hudson Law Offices, PC
777 F. Supp. 2d 823 (D. New Jersey, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
651 F. Supp. 2d 273, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78239, 2009 WL 2762165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scioli-v-goldman-warshaw-pc-njd-2009.