Hart v. Clayton-Parker And Associates, In

869 F. Supp. 774 (D. Ariz. 1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P's complaint states that in 1990, she applied for and received a credit card from J.C. Penney Company. When she was subsequently unable to pay her balance of $1,135.25, J.C. Penney assigned her account to D for collection purposes. P alleges that D engaged in deceptive, unfair and abusive debt-collection practices in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ('FDCPA') and applicable Arizona law prohibiting unreasonable debt collection practices. D filed a counterclaim alleging that P defaulted on her payments owing under her installment credit agreement with J.C. Penney's. D seeks $1,135.25 plus interest as well as her costs and attorney's fees. P filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. P argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over D's claim; the counterclaim does not arise under federal law, and the parties are not diverse. the court can have jurisdiction over the counterclaim only if it is a compulsory counterclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a). P contends that her cause of action for unlawful debt collection does not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence as D's cause of action for the underlying debt because 1) her claim focuses on facts concerning D's debt collection practices while the counterclaim focuses on the performance of a contract, 2) the evidence required to support each claim differs, and 3) the claim and counterclaim are not related on a transactional level. P argues that adjudication of the counterclaim would require the presence of J.C. Penney and that the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over that entity. D contends there is a logical relationship between the complaint and counterclaim and that the counterclaim is therefore compulsory. It further contends that the court is competent to adjudicate the counterclaim and that treating the counterclaim as compulsory would avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits.