Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00375/USCOURTS-almd-2_08-cv-00375-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES MEREDITH, JR., )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 2:08cv375-MEF

)

UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, et al., )

) (WO- Do Not Publish)

DEFENDANTS. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Charles Meredith, Jr. (“Meredith”) filed suit on May 20, 2008 against a variety of

defendantsincluding Centurion Capital Corporation (“Centurion”). Meredith allegesthat the

defendants were all engaged in the business of collecting debts and that they made repeated

efforts to collect a debt from him which he does not owe even after he advised that he

disputed the debt. Meredith alleges that defendants’ actions violated the Fair Debt

Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692. Additionally, Meredith contends

that defendants are liable to him for the Alabama common law tort of malicious prosecution.

This cause is before the Court on the Defendant Centurion Capital Corporation’s Motion for

Dismissal and to Withdraw as Counsel Due to Dissolution (Doc. # 34). For the reasons set

forth below, the motion is due to be DENIED.

Centurion’s motion is clearly denominated a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless,

Centurion’s motion is predicated on factual information not found in the Complaint. Indeed,

the predicate for the motion is wholly outside the pleadings and dependent upon facts which

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 42 Filed 05/29/09 Page 1 of 4
came into existence after this lawsuit had been pending for several months and after

Centurion answered the Complaint. Appended to Centurion’s motion are two exhibits by

which Centurion purports to establish certain facts relating to the dissolution of Centurion

as a corporation. Based on what is claimed in the documents to be the dissolution of

1

Centurion months Meredith commenced this lawsuit, Centurion argues that under to

Maryland law, the claims against it must be dismissed because it no longer exists and cannot

be sued. Plaintiff disputes Centurion’s understanding of Maryland and argues that it is

entitled to discovery on matters relating to the dissolution.

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 sets forth the applicable rules pertaining to

motions to dismiss. While Centurion has not bothered to specify which type of motion to

dismiss it is making, it is clear that the nature of the contention in the motion to dismiss is

that the Complaint fails to state a claim against Centurion upon which relief can be granted

now that Centurion has dissolved. That makes this motion a motion brought under Rule

12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) makes it plain that a motion made pursuant

to Rule 12(b)(6) may not rely on matters outside the pleadings without the Court’s active

blessing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Specifically, when such a motion is made and supported by

materials outside the pleadings the court may exclude those materials and consider the merits

 The Court notes that these documents are not certified records, nor do the exhibits

1

include any affidavit or declaration identifying, authenticating, or in any way vouching for

these “exhibits.”

The Court notes that Maryland law does govern the legal issue of whether claims

2

in a pending lawsuit against a Maryland corporation abate when the corporation is dissolved.

2

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 42 Filed 05/29/09 Page 2 of 4
of the motion without them or accept those materials and treat the motion as a motion for

summary judgment. Id. Given the procedural posture of this case and the relatively recent

factual developments relating to the dissolution of Centurion, the Court is not inclined to

accept the materials and treat the motion as one for summary judgment because Plaintiff has

not had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery on matters relating to the dissolution.

Accordingly, the Court declines to consider the materials relating to matters outside the

pleadings which Centurion has presented along with its motion and finds, in the absence of

those materials the motion to dismiss is due to be DENIED.

3

As for the motion for leave to withdraw as counsel pursuant to the local rules for this

district, the Court is not persuaded at this time that counsel has set forth an adequate basis

for this request especially in light of the fact that Centurion, as a corporation, cannot appear

pro se.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Centurion Capital

Corporation’s Motion for Dismissal and to Withdraw as Counsel Due to Dissolution (Doc.

# 34) is DENIED with respect to both requests for relief which it contains.

The Court further notes that the “exhibits” to the motion are not certified

3

documents, nor are they properly authenticated by an affidavit or declaration which comports

with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Many court have refused to consider

documents submitted in support of motions for summary judgment that are not properly

authenticated. Were this Court to consider the pending motion as a motion for summary

judgment, it would also find that it was not a properly supported one. For this additional

reason, the Court is not inclined to consider the materials attached to the motion to dismiss

as exhibits and convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56.

3

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 42 Filed 05/29/09 Page 3 of 4
The parties are advised to immediately commence all discovery required to prepare

adequately to present or defend against any dispositive motion. The deadline for such

motions is rapidly approaching. While the Court appreciates that the parties may not have

been participating in active discover since the motion to dismiss was filed on March 31,

2009, the Court is expediting ruling on the motion to dismiss, in part to stem the seemingly

endless flow of argument on the motion, in order to allow sufficient time for discovery

without an extension of the July 10, 2009 deadline for dispositive motions. The parties are

further advised there will not be sufficient time after the dispositive motion deadline to

conduct discovery necessary to defend against any motion filed on that deadline. The

standard briefing schedule on a dispositive motion allows a response with exhibits to be filed

approximately two weeks after the initial dispositive motion is filed and a reply one week

after the response. No further briefs or evidentiary submissions are acceptable without

proper leave of court.

DONE this the 29 day of May, 2009.

th

/s/ Mark E. Fuller

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4

Case 2:08-cv-00375-MEF-WC Document 42 Filed 05/29/09 Page 4 of 4