Representative Matters
Arizona federal district court grants summary judgment for Simmonds & Narita law firm client in two cases, finding FDCPA claims based on the collection of delinquent homeowner assessments were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
In September 2018, the U.S District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of Simmonds & Narita’s law firm client, rejecting allegations that the garnishment of the plaintiff’s wages violated sections 1692e and 1692 of the FDCPA. The court held that the claims challenging the lawfulness of the relief awarded in the state court judgment were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court also held that the language in the writ related to recovering accruing attorneys’ fees and costs under the judgment would not mislead the “least sophisticated debtor.” Lastly, the court held none of the state procedural rules the plaintiff alleged the law firm failed to comply with were applicable.
Later that same month, the U.S District Court for the District of Arizona granted summary judgment in favor of Simmonds & Narita’s law firm client in a second case brought by the same consumer attorney. In that case, the court also held that to the extent claims challenged the lawfulness of the relief awarded in the judgment, they were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court also refused to consider new theories of liability the plaintiff attempted to raise on summary judgment that were not pled in the operative complaint.