Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cain v. Thompson

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

January 3, 2020

ROBERT M. CAIN; and DONNA J. CAIN PLAINTIFFS
v.
TRAVIS W. THOMPSON DEFENDANT

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Greg N. Stivers, Chief Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DN 9), Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (DN 12), Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 14), Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 18), and Plaintiffs' Motion for a Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment (DN 19). This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motions are DENIED.

         I. BACKGROUND

         A. Statement of Facts

         The facts giving rise to this action are unclear on the face of the Complaint as filed by Plaintiffs Robert Cain and Donna Cain (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). It appears, however, that Defendant Travis Thompson (“Defendant”), an attorney licensed in Kentucky practicing with the firm Clunk, Hoose LPA, [1] represents Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”) in a state foreclosure action against Plaintiffs. (Compl. 1-2, DN 1). Plaintiffs allege that this process involved numerous procedural deficiencies and fraudulent practices on the part of Defendant. (Compl. 1-4) Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant “demanded forfeiture of property based on an undocumented and unverified claim that [Plaintiffs] owed $166, 082.36 . . . [then] raised their damages again to $191, 522.37.” (Compl. 2). Plaintiffs further allege, among other claims, that Defendant did not provide proper notice to Plaintiffs and that Deutsche Bank “is not a bona fide holder in due course of a promissory note binding on [Plaintiffs].” (Compl. 2-3).

         Defendant's motion to dismiss and the state foreclosure complaint clarify that this action arises from a Note in the amount of $109, 800 that Plaintiffs secured with a Mortgage on property located in Meade County, Kentucky. (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2, DN 9; Def.'s Reply Mot. Dismiss Ex. A at 2). On October 14, 2016, Defendant initiated an underlying foreclosure action on behalf of Deutsche Bank against Plaintiffs in Meade County Circuit Court, styled 16-CI-00282. (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss 2).

         B. Procedural History

         On March 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the present Complaint alleging various violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p, relating to the Meade Circuit Court foreclosure action. (Compl. 1-4). On May 31, 2019, Defendant moved to dismiss the case. (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss). Plaintiffs responded, and Defendant replied. (Pls.' Resp. Def.'s Mot. Dismiss, DN 10; Def.'s Reply Mot. Dismiss, DN 11). On July 22, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a brief styled as a brief in opposition to and motion to strike Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Pls.' Mot. Strike #1, DN 12). Plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment. (Pls.' Mot. Summ. J., DN 14). Defendant responded, and Plaintiffs replied. (Def.'s Resp. Pls.' Mot. Summ. J., DN 16; Pls.' Reply Mot. Summ. J., DN 17). On September 19, 2019, Plaintiffs moved to strike Defendant's response to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. (Pls.' Mot. Strike #2, DN 18). Finally, on December 18, 2019, Plaintiffs moved for a hearing on the motion for summary judgment. (Pl.'s Mot. Hr'g, DN 19).[2]

         II. JURISDICTION

         The Complaint alleges violations of federal law, namely the FDCPA. As such, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action via federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

         III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), “a Complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009)). Even so, the Court need not accept a party's “bare assertion of legal conclusions.” Columbia Nat. Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). Ultimately, this inquiry is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         The Complaint alleges violations of the FDCPA. Defendant argues that the FDCPA claims (1) are barred by the statute of limitations, (2) are barred by res judicata, and (3) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.