Thomas v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Eastern District Thomas v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Thomas v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

Plaintiff:	Nieasha Thomas
Defendant:	Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Case Number:	2:2017cv00523
Filed:	January 30, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Office:	Central Islip Office
Presiding Judge:	Arlene R. Lindsay
Presiding Judge:	Arthur D. Spatt
Nature of Suit:	Consumer Credit
Cause of Action:	15 U.S.C. § 1692 Fair Debt Collection Act
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
November 27, 2017	Filing 22 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER - For the reasons stated above, the Defendant's 16 motion to dismiss the complaint is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that the Plaintiff's claims for violations of Sections 16 92e and 1692g based on the letters statements regarding debt disputes are dismissed. It is denied to the extent that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts for the Court to plausibly grant relief on her claims for violations of Sections 1692e and 1692g based on the letters failure to adequately convey the debt. The Defendants motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding pending arbitration is granted. Accordingly the Plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate her remaining claims pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. The case will remain stayed pending the resolution of arbitration. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 11/27/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 27, 2017

Filing 22 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER - For the reasons stated above, the Defendant's 16 motion to dismiss the complaint is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted to the extent that the Plaintiff's claims for violations of Sections 16 92e and 1692g based on the letters statements regarding debt disputes are dismissed. It is denied to the extent that the Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts for the Court to plausibly grant relief on her claims for violations of Sections 1692e and 1692g based on the letters failure to adequately convey the debt. The Defendants motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceeding pending arbitration is granted. Accordingly the Plaintiff is compelled to arbitrate her remaining claims pursuant to the terms of the Arbitration Agreement. The case will remain stayed pending the resolution of arbitration. SEE ATTACHED DECISION for details. Ordered by Judge Arthur D. Spatt on 11/27/2017. (Coleman, Laurie)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Thomas v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Midland Credit Management, Inc.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Nieasha Thomas
Represented By:	David M. Barshay
Represented By:	Craig B. Sanders
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?