United States District Court, D. Oregon
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION
A. RUSSO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Leandra Schneider brings this action alleging defendant JTM
Capital Management (JTM) violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, in its attempts
to collect a debt from plaintiff. Defendant moves for summary
judgment. The court held oral argument on March 7, 2018.
Defendant's motion should be granted and this case
is a passive debt buyer and does not engage in any direct
collection activities concerning the accounts it owns.
Defendant invested in a debt portfolio which included
plaintiff's account. Plaintiff alleges defendant is a
debt collector who violated the FDCPA by:
. Threatening to take an action or actions that cannot be
legally taken or that Defendant did not intend to take,
including falsely threatening legal action by and through
Defendant's agent, Northeastern Asset Recovery Group,
. [C]ommunicating with Plaintiff directly after learning
that Plaintiff is being represented by counsel.
Complaint (doc. 1) ¶¶ 9-10.
August 16, 2017, the court set a discovery deadline of
December 29, 2017, and a dispositive motion deadline of
January 31, 2018. On December 22, 2017, defendant filed a
motion for summary judgement. Defendant asserts it is not
liable under the FDCPA because it does not meet the statutory
definition of a debt collector. Specifically, defendant
argues its principal business purpose is not the collection
of debts and it does not regularly attempt to collect debts
asserted to be owed or due another. See 15 U.S.C.
December 14, 2017, plaintiff sought an extension of the
discovery deadline and on December 26, 2017, the court
extended the discovery deadline to January 31, 2018. On
January 11, 2018, plaintiff responded substantively to the
motion for summary judgment, but also requested additional
time to supplement her response after completing discovery on
the issue of defendant's principal business purpose.
After defendant filed its motion for summary judgement,
plaintiff issued a second set of written discovery
requests. Plaintiff requested defendant describe,
among other things, the “principal purpose” of
its business, and the process utilized to hire Northeastern
Asset Recovery Group. The court, after a status conference,
stayed briefing pending completion of discovery and allowed
plaintiff to file an amended response by February 7, 2018.
February 7, 2018, plaintiff filed a "supplemental
brief" asserting defendant's answers were
"evasive" with respect to any investigation by JTM
whether "to hire the undercapitalized and extremely
aggressive collector it eventually chose to collect the debt
allegedly owed by Plaintiff." Supplemental Brief (doc.
19) at p. 1. Accordingly, plaintiff requests additional time
to conduct a deposition.
reasons stated below, plaintiff's requested discovery
would be futile and the motion for summary judgment should be
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d), plaintiff may seek additional discovery
to obtain facts essential to justify an opposition to summary
judgment. A party requesting a continuance pursuant to this
rule must identify the specific facts that further discovery
would reveal and explain why those facts would ...