Opinion ID: 2806123
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The First Summary Judgment and Appeal

Text: The parties agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and both parties moved for summary judgment. 2 Onwuteaka filed his first motion, resting solely on the statute of limitations, in January 2012. After the agreed discovery deadline lapsed in April 2012—with neither party having deposed Serna or filed any motions to compel discovery— Onwuteaka filed his second motion for summary judgment. Onwuteaka contended that Serna’s suit constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the state-court judgment; that Serna’s claim qualified as a compulsory counterclaim that he waived by failing to assert it in the Harris County court; and that the suit was barred by the terms of the promissory note, which provided for a “Waiver of Venue and the Right to file suit” and designated arbitration as the exclusive means of dispute resolution. 3 Serna, in turn, asserted that there was no genuine dispute of material fact on any element of his affirmative claims under the FDCPA, and that none of Onwuteaka’s affirmative defenses had merit. 1 Specifically, Onwuteaka asserted eight affirmative defenses: (1) the statute of limitations; (2) “the doctrine of compulsory counterclaim”; (3) “the doctrine of election of remedies”; (4) “estoppel[] and/or collateral estoppel”; (5) qualified immunity; (6) “lack of intent and/or bona fide error on the part of defendants”; (7) res judicata; and (8) “the doctrine of waiver.” Although Onwuteaka listed a claim for “offsets and credits for the judgment against [plaintiff]” as an affirmative defense, the district court concluded that this request for relief “is more properly cast as a counterclaim.” 2 Serna voluntarily moved to dismiss the DTPA claims before the district court ruled on the cross-motions for summary judgment. 3 Onwuteaka’s entire argument on the arbitration issue comprised two sentences: “Plaintiff also[] elected Arbitration as the forum to resolve any dispute, and thus is barred by the doctrine[] of election of remedies. (See Exhibit ‘A’, Pages 3–4). The Court should grant summary judgment for defendants or at a minimum[] refer the case to Arbitration.” Although Onwuteaka appended a copy of the promissory note to his motion, he inexplicably omitted three pages—including the pages referenced in the motion itself, which contained the arbitration clause—from his filing. 3 Case: 14-20574 Document: 00513069143 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/05/2015 No. 14-20574 The magistrate granted summary judgment to Onwuteaka on Serna’s FDCPA claims, concluding that the suit was barred by the FDCPA’s one-year statute of limitations, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(d), and to Serna on Onwuteaka’s counterclaim. On appeal, this Court held that Serna’s suit was in fact timely under § 1692k(d). Serna v. Law Office of Joseph Onwuteaka, P.C., 732 F.3d 440, 450 (5th Cir. 2013). We did not pass judgment on any other issue in the case.