Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08169/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08169-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Christine Baker, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Midland Funding LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08169-PCT-DGC

ORDER 

 Defendants Barry Bursey, Jason LeRoy, Monica Derrick, and Gina Scalese (the 

“Individual Bursey Defendants”) have filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Doc. 55. Plaintiff Baker has responded. Doc. 63. No party has requested oral argument. 

The motion will be granted. 

 On January 30, 2014, the Court granted Defendant Midland Funding LLC’s 

motion for judgment on the pleadings. Doc. 56. The Court held that Plaintiff Baker’s 

claims against all defendants under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) 

were barred by the statute of limitations. Id. The Court held that any new allegations 

that Plaintiff may offer to support her FDCPA claims would be futile. Id. at 8. The 

Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend only her Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) 

claims. Id. 

 Plaintiff’s claims against the Individual Bursey Defendants all relate to her 

FDCPA claims. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the Individual Bursey Defendants 

acted improperly in litigating the underlying lawsuit. Doc. 27-2, Am. Complaint, ¶¶ 58-

Case 3:13-cv-08169-SPL Document 69 Filed 02/24/14 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

65. The Court has already held, however, that post-filing litigation actions by Defendants 

do not constitute separate violations of the FDCPA that could extend the statute of 

limitations beyond the date of filing of the underlying lawsuit. Doc. 56 at 3-4. 

 Plaintiff’s allegations under the FCRA are supported only by facts regarding the 

actions of Defendants Equifax and Midland. Id., ¶¶ 70-75. Plaintiff has not alleged that 

the Individual Bursey Defendants violated the FCRA. 

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the 

Individual Bursey Defendants (Doc. 55) is granted. 

 Dated this 24th day of February, 2014. 

Case 3:13-cv-08169-SPL Document 69 Filed 02/24/14 Page 2 of 2