A District Court judge in Michigan has denied a plaintiff’s motion to amend or relieve a judgment while also denying the defendant’s motion for sanctions in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case in a ruling that closes a case that has been back and forth between the District Court and Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. What’s interesting about this case is that the debt in question appears to be commercial in nature.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Lewis v. Sole can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff, who is a salesperson for a real estate brokerage, sold a home using a lead that was provided by a third-party company, but did not pay the company the commission it was required to do so under the agreement between the two parties. A judgment was entered against the plaintiff, and was used to garnish his wages. The defendant, according to the plaintiff, has a record of filing suits against individuals — not the companies that entered into the agreements with the lead provider. The plaintiff filed suit, arguing that the defendant violated the FDCPA by pursuing activity in Florida, when the plaintiff lived in Michigan. A District Court judge dismissed the case, which the plaintiff appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The case was remanded back to the District Court.
The plaintiff’s issue, according to Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, is that he did not object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation properly. “… Plaintiff has made no effort to demonstrate a flaw in Judge Morris’s analysis,” Judge Ludington wrote. “Nor in this Court’s analysis. He merely seeks to change the law.”
The defendant, meanwhile, filed a motion for sanctions, but Judge Ludington ruled the plaintiff’s argument “was well grounded in fact, not frivolous, and not intended to harass or to delay.”