Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01467/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01467-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

Joseph Cisneros, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C., a professional

corporation, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV06-1467-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendants have filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Dkt. #18. Plaintiff

has filed a response. Dkt. #21. Defendants have not replied. Defendants have also filed a

Motion to Stay Discovery. Dkt. #19. Plaintiff has responded. Dkt. #20. Defendants have

not replied. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny both motions. 

Defendants seek dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) “is

properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving party’s pleadings as true,

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v. County of Los

Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1998); see Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375

F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that in ruling on a 12(c) motion, a court must accept

as true all allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint and treat as false all allegations in the

defendant’s answer that contradict the plaintiff’s allegations). In other words, dismissal

pursuant to Rule 12(c) is inappropriate if the facts as pled would entitle the plaintiff to a

Case 2:06-cv-01467-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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

- 2 -

remedy. Merchants Home Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Hall & Co., 50 F.3d 1486, 1488 (9th Cir.

1995).

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection

Practices Act (“FDCPA”) by filing a justice court lawsuit against Plaintiff that sought

liquidated attorneys’ fees equal to 25% of the debt being collected. Dkt. #1. Defendants’

motion argues that the amount sought in attorneys’ fees – $1,390.71 – was less than 20% of

the total debt and interest sought in the complaint, and therefore was legally permitted under

the Delaware law governing Plaintiff’s credit card obligation. Dkt. #18 (quoting 10 Del. C.

§ 3912). 

As Plaintiff notes in his response, however, the Delaware law at issue does not state

that any fee less than 20% of the debt and interest is deemed to be reasonable and lawful.

Rather, the statute cited by Defendants provides that a party seeking to recover a debt may

also recover “reasonable counsel fees.” 10 Del. C. § 3912. The law further provides that

such fees may not “exceed 20 percent of the amount adjudged for principal and interests.”

The statute places a cap on the recoverable fees, but it does not state that fees below the cap

are recoverable as a matter of law. According to the terms of the statute, the fees must still

be “reasonable.” Id. The written agreement between Plaintiff and his credit card company

likewise permitted recovery of “reasonable attorneys’ fees.” Dkt. #1. 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the fee amount sought by Defendants in the justice

court complaint was not reasonable, that the fee was a fixed 25% of the debt being collected,

that the fixed nature of the fee was concealed from Plaintiff, and that the attempt to recover

an unreasonable and fixed fee violated the FDCPA. Dkt. #1. Taking the allegations of

Plaintiff’s complaint as true, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Defendants’

actions did not violate the FDCPA. The Court will therefore deny Defendants’ motion to

dismiss.

Defendants motion to stay discovery seeks a postponement of discovery pending

resolution fo the motion to dismiss. Because the motion to dismiss has been resolved, the

motion to stay discovery will be denied. Plaintiff notes that Defendant Neuheisel has

Case 2:06-cv-01467-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

unilaterally postponed at least two depositions noticed by Plaintiff. Such postponements

should not occur in the future.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. #18) is denied.

2. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (Dkt. #19) is denied.

DATED this 13th day of December, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01467-DGC Document 25 Filed 12/13/06 Page 3 of 3