NOT PR E CEDENTIAL

UNITED STA TES COURT OF AP PEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 9

- 3 6 4 8

__________

J O N A T H A N V A L E N T I N

,

A p p e l l a n t

v.

E S P E R A N Z A H O U S I N G C O U N S E L I N G

_________________ __

_________________

On Appeal fr om the United States Dis trict Court

for the E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

(D.C . Civ il Action No. 2 :1 8

- cv

- 01984 )

District Jud ge: Honorable C. Darnell Jones II

____________________________________

S ubmitted Pursuant to Thi r d Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

A u g u s t 1 1

, 2 0 2 0

Before: K R A U S E

, M A T E Y

, a n d R O T H

, Circuit Ju dges

(Opinion filed F ebruary 4, 2021 )

___________

OPINION *

___________

PER CURIAM

* This dis position is not an opinion of the f ul l Co urt a nd pu rsuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not

c ons titute bi nding precedent.2

S t a r t i n g i n 2 0 0 8

, A p p e l l a n t J o n a t h a n V a l e n t i n w o r k e d w i t h E s p e r a n z a H o u s i n g

C o u n s e l i n g ( “ E H C ” ) t o a v o i d f o r e c l o s u r e o n h i s P h i l ad e l p h i a

, P e n n s y l v a n i a h o m e

. I n

p a r t i c u l a r

, E H C a s s i s t e d V a l e n t i n w i t h o bt a i n i n g a “ m o r t g a g e modification

, a p i l o t

m o r t g a g e h o m e e q u i t y l o a n a n d a P H F A m o r t g a g e g r a n t

. ” 1

T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o u r e d i n 2 0 1 4

, w h e n E H C allegedl y subjected V a l e n t i n t o

“ h a r a s s m e n t

, h a z i n g

, d e n i a l o f s e r v i c e s a n d l e g a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

. ” A n d i t e n d e d i n 2 0 1 6

,

w h e n E H C c l o s e d V a l e n t i n ’ s “ c r e d i t c a s e f i l e

. ” T h e c a s e

- f

i l e c l o s u r e w a s r o o t e d i n a

v a r i e t y o f s e e m i n g l y uncontroversial f a c t o r s

, i n c l u d i n g V a l e n t i n ’ s e m p l o y m e n t a n d

o v e r a l l f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s

. 2 V a l e n t i n b e l i e v e d

, h o w e v e r

, t h a t u n l a w f u l p h e n o t y p i c a l b i a s

w a s o n e o f t h e f

a c t o r s i n t h e m i x

. A s p r o o f

, h e a l l e g e d t h a t E H C e m p l o y e e s r e f e r r e d t o

h i m u s i n g a r a c i a l e p i t h e t

, c r i t i c i z e d h i s l a c k o f S p a n i s h l i t e r a c y

, a n d m a d e “ c o m m e n t s

s u c h a s

. . . d o n ’ t y o u w a n t t o h e l p o u t y o u r o w n r a c e

. ”

I n r e s p o n s e t o t h i s p e r c e i v e d m i s t r ea t m e n t

, V a l e n t i n f i l e d a p r o s e s u i t a g a i n s t

E H C i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f P e n n s y l v a n i a

. H e

r a i s e d t h e f

o l l o w i n g c l a i m s i n h i s C o m p l a i n t : h a r a s s m e n t u n d e r t h e F a i r D e b t C o l l e c t i o n

P r a c t i c e s A c t ( t h e F D C P A )

, s e e 1 5 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 9 2 d ; “ h a z i n g

, ” a s d e f i n e d i n t h e l a w s

g o v e r n i n g t h e c o n d u c t o f m i d s h i p m e n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s N a v a l A c a d e m y

, s e e 1 0

1 We accept as true all well

- pleaded factual allegations in V alentin ’s operative plead ing :

hi s third amended complaint ( Complaint )

. See Phillips v. Cty. of Allegheny , 515 F.3d

22 4, 231 (3d Cir. 2008). Q uote d tex t is pul l ed direc tly from t he Complaint.

2 Insofar as Valentin alleged that th ings ended in part becaus e he re fused to “ f orceful ly

segre g a te into and or with [ E H C ’ s ] voluntary program and its participants

, ” w e disc ount3

U

. S

. C

. § 6 9 6 4 ; a n d r a c i a l discrimination u n d e r T i t l e V I o f t h e C i v i l R i g h t s A c t o f 1 9 6 4

( T i t l e V I )

, s e e 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 2 0 0 0 ( d )

.

A f t e r a c o u r t

- o r d e r e d settlement c o n f e r e n c e p r o ve d f

r u i t l e s s

, E H C f

i l e d a m o t i o n

t o d i s m i s s t h e C o m p l a i n t u n d e r F e d e r a l R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 )

. V a l e n t i n d i d

n o t f i l e a r e s p o n s e

.

I n i t s o p i n i o n d i s p o si n g o f E H C ’ s m o t i o n

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f i r s t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t

V a l e n t i n f

a i l e d t o a d e q u a t e l y p l e a d a n F D C P A c l a i m

, a s t h e C o m p l a i n t l a c k e d a l l e g a t i o n s

t h a t E H C ( 1 ) is a debt collector, ( 2 ) attempted to collect a debt, or ( 3 ) v iolat ed a p a r t i c u l a r

pr o vision of the FDCPA

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n e x t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t V a l e n t i n ’ s ‘ h a z i n g ’

c l a i m i s n o t c o g n i z a b l e u nd e r a n y a v a i l a b l e b o d y o f l a w

. T u r n i n g t o t he t h i r d c l a i m

, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e C o m p l a i n t l a c k e d a l l e g a t i o n s s h o w i n g t h a t E H C

r e c e i v e s f e d e r a l f i n a n c i a l assistance

, a s r e q u i r e d b y T i t l e V I

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

d e t e r m i n e d i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t V a l e n t i n f a i l e d t o a d e q u a t e l y p l e a d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e o f

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b y E H C

. F i n a l l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d t h e C o m p l a i n t a s

r a i s i n g a c l a i m u n d e r 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 1

— w h i c h prohibits discrimination in the making

and enforcement of contracts on the b asis of rac e

— a n d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s u c h a c l a i m w a s

inadequately p l e a d e d f

o r e s s e n t i a l l y t h e r e a s o n s t h a t s t y m i e d t h e T i t l e V I c l a i m

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h u s g r a n t e d E H C ’ s m o t i o n

. I t d i s m i s s e d t h e F D C P A a n d

h a z i n g c l a i m s w i t h p r e

j u d i c e

. O p e n t o t h e possib i lity t h a t V a l e n t i n c o u l d c u r e t h e

p l e a d i n g d e f

e c t s o f h i s T i t l e V I a n d § 1 9 8 1 c l a i m s

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h o s e

th is contextless allegation because it defie s comprehensi on ; i. e.

, it is not well

- pleaded

.4

c l a i m s w i t h o u t prejudice t o t h e f i l i n g o f a f

o u r t h a m e n d e d c o m p l a i n t w i t h i n t h r e e w e e k s

o f i t s r e l e v a n t o r d e r

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w a r n e d V a l e n t i n t h a t

, i f h e d i d n o t t i m e l y a m e n d

,

t h e w h o l e c a s e w o u l d b e d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e

. T h e w a r n i n g w e n t u n h e e d e d ; t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d j u d g m e n t a s p r o m i s e d ; a n d V a l e n t i n t i m e l y a p p e a l e d

. 3

A f t e r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a r g u m e n t s r a i s e d i n V a l e n t i n ’ s p r o s e b r i e f

, w e

d i s c e r n n o e r r o r b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. T h e C o m p l a i n t

, w h i c h V a l e n t i n d e c l i n e d t o f u r t h e r

a m e n d d e s p i t e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s i n v i t a t i o n

, f a i l e d t o s t a t e a v i a b l e c l a i m f o r r e l i e f

.

S p e c i f i c a l l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d V a l e n t i n ’ s § 1 9 8 1 c l a i m

b e c a u s e

, a m o n g i t s deficiencies

, t h e C o m p l a i n t l a c k e d a l l e g a t i o n s p l a u s i b l y

d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t r a c e w a s a b u t

- f o r c a u s e o f t h e V a l e n t i n

- E H C r e l a t i o n s h i p ’ s e n d

. S e e

Comcast Corp. v. Nat ’ l Ass ’ n of African Am.

- Ow n ed Media , 140 S. Ct. 1009, 1019

(2020) ( h o l d i n g t h a t “ [ t ] o prevail [ o n a § 1 9 8 1 c l a i m ] , a p laintiff mu st init ially p lead and

ul t imately prove tha t, but for race, it would not have suffered the loss of a legally

protected right ” )

. I n d e e d

, V a l e n t i n m a d e c l e a r i n h i s C o m p l a i n t t h a t h i s r a c e w a s

, a t

m o s t

, o n e o f s e v e r a l f

a c t o r s t h a t l e d E H C t o c l o s e h i s c a s e f i l e

.

T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d t h e F D C P A c l a i m

. V a l e n t i n ’ s

a r g u m e n t t h a t E H C s e r v e d a s a n F D C P A

- c o v e r e d d e b t c o l l e c t o r o n b e h a l f o f h i s

m o r t g a g e e i s s i m p l y i m p l a u s i b l e i n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t u a l n a r r a t i v e s e t f

o r t h i n t h e

C o m p l a i n t

. S e e 1 5 U

. S

. C

. § 1 6 9 2 a ( 6 ) ; c f

. Santiago v. Warminster Twp. , 629 F.3d 121,

3 W e have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. Our r eview is de n ovo. Davis v. Samuels

, 962 F.3d 105, 111 n.2 (3d Cir. 2020)

.5

133 (3d Cir. 2010) ( e x p l a i n i n g t h a t “ ‘ possibility ’ is no longer the touchstone for p l eading

sufficiency after Twombly and Iqbal. Plausibility is what matters ” )

. L a s t l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t p r o p er l y d ismissed t he T i t l e V I c l a i m f o r l a c k o f a l le g a t i o n s t h a t E H C i s t he

r e c i p i e n t o f f

e d e r a l f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e

. S e e D a v i s

, 9 6 2 F

. 3 d a t 1 1 5 n

. 1 1

. P e r h a p s

V a l e n t i n c o u l d h a v e f

i x e d t h a t p l e a d i n g d e f

e c t b u t

, a s n o t e d a b o v e

, h e c h o s e n o t t o

.

A c c o r d i n g l y

, w e w i l l a f

f i r m t h e judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

. 4

4 V a l e n t i n d o e s n o t a t t e m p t t o d e f e n d t h e p l e a d i n g o f h i s u n i q u e “ h a z i n g ” c l a i m

, w h i c h

, in any event, w a s p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d a s n o n

- c o g n i z a b l e

.