United States District Court, D. Minnesota
STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, Plaintiff,
FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES (FRS) INC.; BARCLAYS BANK INC., ET AL.; JOHN DOES x 10; and JANE DOES x 10, Defendants.
ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
E. Brasel United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss [ECF No.
27] filed by Defendant Barclays Bank Delaware
(“Barclays”) on August 17, 2018 and on a Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF No. 36] filed by Plaintiff
Stephen Edwards (“Edwards”) on August 20, 2018.
In a Report and Recommendation dated January 31, 2019 [ECF
No. 64 (“R&R”)], United States Magistrate
Judge David T. Schultz recommended that Barclays' motion
be granted in its entirety and that Edwards's motion be
denied. Edwards filed an objection to the R&R. [ECF No.
66 (“Pl.'s Obj.”).] Barclays filed a response
to Edwards's objection. [ECF No. 69 (“Def.
Reply”.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court
overrules the Plaintiff's objections and accepts the
a pro se plaintiff, has filed this action against
Defendants alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (“FDCPA”) (Count I);
Minnesota's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (known as
the Minnesota Collection Agencies Act (“MCAA”))
(Count II); and Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act
(“MCFA”). [See gen. Compl.] The factual
background for the above-entitled matter is clearly set forth
in the R&R and is incorporated by reference for purposes
of Edward's objections.
magistrate judge's report and recommendation is filed, a
party may “serve and file specific written objections
to the proposed findings and recommendations.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). If a party
objects to a magistrate judge's report and
recommendation, the Court “shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court has
conducted a de novo review of the record, including
a review of the arguments and submissions of counsel,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2), and Local Rule 72.2(b).
Judge Schultz recommends that the Court grant Barclay's
motion to dismiss with respect to Edwards's claims under
the FDCPA, the MCAA and the MCFA because (1) Barclays is a
“creditor” not a “debt collector” as
defined by the FDCPA and, thus, the FDCPA does not regulate
Barclays' activities as a
“creditor”; (2) there is no private right of action
under the MCAA; and (3) Edwards failed to demonstrate
that his claim under the MCFA has a public benefit as
required when an individual brings a claim through the
Private Attorney General Statute.
objects to the R&R on several grounds. Much of
Plaintiff's objection, however, does not directly
implicate any findings or conclusions in the R&R. In
addition, several objections relate to factual matters that
were not relied upon by the Magistrate Judge or were not
material to the conclusions in the R&R. Edwards asserts
that his MCFA claim demonstrates a public benefit, but fails
to cite to any authority to support his position. Further, to
the extent that Edwards argues that the Barclays attorneys
acted in bad faith by allegedly reneging on a settlement
deal, the Court finds no support for this assertion in the
record. The record reflects that Edwards was ordered to serve
a copy of the Motion for Default Judgment on Barclays Bank
Inc., an entity that does not exist within the Barclays Bank
corporate structure [See ECF No. 17; Def. Reply at 2
n. 3.] Subsequently, Barclays and Edwards entered into a
stipulation, pursuant to which Barclays voluntarily agreed to
waive service of the Complaint upon it and Edwards agreed to
withdraw his motion for default judgment and provide Barclays
with 30 days to respond to the Complaint. [ECF No. 21.] There
is no settlement agreement in the record between Edwards and
Barclays. Thus, Edwards assertion of bad faith and his
request for an Order to Show Cause hearing pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 both fail.
Court has carefully reviewed the record and concludes that
Plaintiff's objections offer no basis for departure from
the R&R. Edwards' objections do little to challenge
the sound legal reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and offer
no legal basis for not adopting his recommendations.
on the foregoing, and on all the files, records and
proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES Edwards's
objections [ECF No. 66], and ACCEPTS the R&R [ECF No.
64]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff Stephen S. Edwards' Rule 12(c) Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings against Defendant Barclays Bank
Delaware [ECF No. 36] is DENIED.
Defendant Barclays Bank Delaware's Motion to Dismiss [ECF
No. 27] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Stephen S. Edwards' Motion to Strike (Doc. 65
& 69) and for Rule 12(c) Judgment against ...